Our Ability To Accept Dissent Is Going Down

In contemporary society, there is a tendency to prioritise business, often equating it with importance. How can we foster a culture that values slowness and reflection equally?

In high-power distance societies like India and Japan, business is often equated with importance. Reflective leadership and open-ended questioning are vital to counter this mindset!

 If you look at India and Japan, they are very similar in this respect. I would hazard a guess that all high power distance societies and hierarchical societies share this sentiment that ‘Oh my God! We need to be busy. We need to be there all the time,’ etc. In Japan, if you go home early, you’re obviously not doing a good job, or you’re not valued by your company. In India, ‘thank-you speeches’ at events often include phrases like, ‘Despite your busy schedule, Madam or Sir, you’ve joined us. We are so grateful for you!’ Quite often, these guests might not be busy at all. We are inherently a nation that favours action orientation. We want action. That’s why T20 is so popular. I believe the only way for leaders to address this is to step back, be reflective, and practice the art of asking open-ended questions rather than closed-ended ones. “Is this black or white?” is a ‘busy’ question. Asking, “What colour should it be?” opens up a more reflective dialogue. Another essential practice for leaders is to debrief after events. They need to sit back and ask, “Hey folks, what went well and what didn’t go well? What could we have done better?” So, I think those are the areas of reflection that need attention. In colleges, especially business schools, we need to have more liberal arts people in class as opposed to solely quantitative engineering types. Including a mix of people from liberal arts backgrounds, sociology, and similar disciplines, would make the class more reflective than it is today. That’s how I would approach the issue of business. 

There’s been a growing emphasis on promoting positive work culture within companies. However, is this focus on positivity inadvertently discouraging people from expressing themselves freely and providing critical feedback? Are companies inadvertently creating environments where only positive feedback is accepted, thus hindering the creation of a truly open work environment? 

You’re absolutely right; I see a lot of this, including on LinkedIn. And I believe the biggest culprits are the CHROs and CEOs. Events organised by the CHRO and HR teams often feel like tamashas, like offering pizzas on Monday, something else on Tuesday, and a disco session on Wednesday — akin to attending a party and expecting a return gift. True friendship, or a meaningful relationship, isn’t built on these superficial gestures. Despite all these tamashas, attrition rates continue to remain high. So, my first point is that we shouldn’t be swayed by these superficial tactics when it comes to culture. Second, if you genuinely want openness, you have to eliminate fear. A culture where people can speak up honestly and openly thrives when there’s no fear. It requires encouragement for open dialogue. People need to feel that it’s okay to discuss failure; there’s nothing wrong with it. Moreover, intellectual honesty is crucial. When people are both capable and intellectually honest, they will speak up. Conversely, when people lack capability and intellectual honesty, they become subservient to bosses and the prevailing culture.

You mentioned the word ‘failure.’ That raises another question: are we celebrating failure too quickly and too often? Are we truly embracing failure in the pursuit of learning from mistakes? Is failure being recognised constructively today, or is it being glamourised? 

In Nokia and in the tech industry, there’s a saying: you either fail fast or you scale fast. In the tech industry, you might have 10 or more innovations every year, but you can’t scale all of them up. So, if something doesn’t meet the threshold, acknowledge it, learn from it, and move on.

What’s important about failure is that you shouldn’t gloss over it or push it under the carpet.

You should address it squarely and ask, ‘Why did we fail?’ Many times, failure occurs because your assumptions were wrong. Look at the number of companies that have come to India and burned their hands because their assumptions were incorrect. They assumed that the 300 to 400 million middle-class consumers had the same value or price points as any other market, which wasn’t true at all. The nature of unorganised competition here is very different. So, it’s essential to revisit your assumptions. To truly celebrate failure, encourage open discussion. Acknowledge mistakes, learn from them, and openly discuss the lessons learned. For instance, at Nokia, when we lost the dual SIM product, Marketing Head Kaustuv Chatterjee and his team, despite their best efforts, were in tears. We acknowledged their hard work with a bottle of champagne, recognising that sometimes, despite our best efforts, failure is inevitable. Similarly, at PepsiCo, Raman Singh, the CHRO of ABB, instituted an award called ‘Dare to Fail.’ He nominated himself as the first recipient, admitting that his software implementation assumption at PepsiCo took more than six months, instead of the anticipated six weeks. The ability to talk honestly about failure fosters a better culture and promotes more vulnerable and authentic leadership. 

Ethics are a crucial part of business, and ethical dilemmas often arise, especially in large corporations. With your extensive experience in the industry, I’m sure you’ve faced your fair share of ethical crossroads. How do you typically handle such ethical quandaries? 

Let me give you two examples. The first is from Nokia. Nokia had a very bad year in 2011, and we were laying off people. As one of the top 25 managers, I wrote to my boss, saying, “Look, we’re laying off people. We’ve had a bad year, and I think I’d like to forego my incremented bonus.” This was my personal view. He wrote back, saying, “Look, Shiv, I’m glad you said this. I think as a company, this year all senior managers will forego the incentive awards.” This was an ethical dilemma. While some parts of the company might have performed well, it was essential to consider the overall interest. Now, let me give you another example from PepsiCo. India has divided the country into red, yellow, and green zones based on water availability. Unfortunately, this zoning system came much later compared to when our factories were set up. Many of our factories were established in red zones. According to government regulations, if you draw one litre of water from an arid area, you need to replenish it with two litres of water to recharge the land. Take Nelamangala, for example, located in Karnataka, about 50 kilometres from Bangalore City. It was an arid area, and day after day, we’d have local villagers protesting, accusing PepsiCo of depleting their water resources. In response, our team devised a strategy. We built water bodies for the villagers. When we inaugurated the first water body, the village sarpanch requested a few benches around the water body for villagers to sit. We agreed. We built several more water bodies after that. Following this initiative, local politicians, including the MLA, MLC, and sarpanchs, commended PepsiCo for its efforts. This situation presented an ethical dilemma: while extracting water to produce beverages, we were impacting people’s livelihoods and lives. However, we managed to strike a balance between business interests and social responsibility by providing water resources to the community. This example highlights the importance of considering how society perceives your actions. 

Companies are often burdened with corporate practices that no longer make sense. Do you think it’s time for a radical approach, such as disobedience, to discard obsolete corporate practices? If so, which specific practices do you advocate discontinuing? 

When I joined Nokia, I was interviewed by 13 people before they selected me. One of the questions asked by a colleague from Finland was particularly memorable. He asked, “Shiv, what would you do if you had to break company rules that you found silly?” I replied, “I will not break any rules without informing my boss. If it’s a silly rule, it should have been abolished long ago. If it’s being broken, and you’re not aware of it, it’s my responsibility to make you aware of it. But I will not break a rule without informing my boss. Without this, we’d have anarchy in the organisation.” Now, about this idea of disobedience, many of our company policies were crafted for a very different world. Our organisational structure is derived from the armed forces 300 years ago, and our people policies reflect that. Let’s consider some examples. What is the relevance of a long-service award today when employees spend just two to three years in a company? Offering a watch for 20 years of service or a suit or saree for 15 years of service is outdated and irrelevant. Another outdated concept is loyalty. Many Indian organisations value loyalty, but today’s employees don’t necessarily prioritise loyalty to a company. Instead, what one should value is capability, impact, and the difference one brings about. Similarly, the practice adopted by many American companies of bottom-slicing the lowest 5 per cent of employees every year, using a bell curve, is flawed. If you keep doing that, you won’t have an organisation. Additionally, a company cannot function solely with stars, say, your No.1, 2, and 3; you also need the others to contribute. In today’s world, there are many outdated rules that need to be reconsidered. Another example: many employees are unaware that all company emails are company property. Few realise that a company can take legal action or even terminate employment for inappropriate email usage. To address these issues, I would assemble a team of young employees aged between 25 and 33 to review our existing policies and rules, identifying those irrelevant to their generation. This engagement would ensure that our policies are relevant and meaningful to the current workforce.

But still, we see growing friction between what you call today’s progressive generation and the traditional way of functioning. Do you believe this friction exists, and if so, what do you envision as the future of the workplace? 

The future of work is significantly shaped by the composition of the workforce. Today, over 60 per cent of the world’s GDP comes from the services sector, highlighting a significant transition from agriculture and manufacturing. A country that’s been able to strike a happy balance would be Germany, which boasts robust manufacturing, reasonable agriculture, and a thriving services sector. India, too, is striving to achieve a similar balance, placing a greater emphasis on manufacturing. However, today, our job landscape is predominantly services-led. The nature of jobs today is focused more on data, analysis, and white-collar work, rather than blue-collar jobs, with employees often sharing work across borders and time zones. Tomorrow’s jobs will be characterised by even greater diversity, encompassing gender, age, economic, and educational backgrounds. The Covid-19 pandemic has introduced a new element into the future of work: flexibility. Recent global data reveals that only 7 per cent of employees attended work on Fridays in the second quarter of last year. American employees are leaving work earlier every Friday, signaling a growing demand for flexible work arrangements.

I believe that flexibility is the birthright of every employee. Resisting this trend is futile. Rigidity will only lead to higher attrition rates!

The only question is: how flexible do you want to be? Rigidity will only lead to higher attrition rates, especially among women, who value flexibility more than men. The only answer to this for organisations is to identify a social glue that binds employees to the workplace. Deeply reflecting on why employees should physically come to work will be one of the defining questions shaping the future of work. 

Could you reflect more on the idea of creating policies with a team of young people? Shouldn’t policy-making be more inclusive, involving everyone to create an inclusive workplace? 

I want to emphasise that inclusion is a feeling, while diversity represents a number, and equity refers to policy. So, the question is, say, do I feel included in this conversation? Yes, because you are making a conscious effort to ensure my inclusion. It’s crucial to avoid interrogation-style conversations, similar to those of television anchors. If you were interrogating me, I would feel excluded from this discussion. Therefore, it’s essential to approach inclusivity with a different mindset. Regarding policy, let me share an experiment at PepsiCo called YCom. It’s a forum of millennials elected by their peers, acting as a parallel board to the executive committee. With 50-60 per cent of PepsiCo employees being millennials, this initiative aimed to give them a voice in decision-making. Candidates would campaign among their peers, and no management endorsements were allowed. Ten representatives were elected annually, each serving a one-year term. They became the voice of the millennials, making decisions on cultural events and even determining the format of the annual conference. This approach ensured that decisions were made by those directly affected by them, rather than distant senior managers. If I were present today, I would advocate for expanding their responsibilities beyond what we started in 2015-16. 

What’s your opinion on the emphasis on creating diverse organisations and workforces? Are we sacrificing quality to achieve diversity? 

True diversity is achieved when individuals feel their opinions and views are valued, shared, and  dissent is welcomed without fear of reprimand!

Meeting a ratio for the sake of a ratio is wrong. When someone says you need two women directors or one woman director, etc, it doesn’t necessarily improve governance or results. There’s enough data on this. Chasing a number for the sake of a number invariably falls short. I think true diversity is when people feel that their opinions and views are heard and shared, and there is absolutely no reprimand for being contrary to the prevailing opinion. Quite often in organisations, if someone challenges the management or says something about the management, that person is often labelled as a cynic. Dissent has become a big problem in India today. For example, on social media, if you say anything which is against the grain, you’re immediately confronted by a bunch of people who will howl at you. I’m a proud Indian, I want India to improve. But I must be honest enough to say, hey, this works, and this doesn’t work. So, our ability to accept dissent is going down, not just in India, but everywhere in the world as a society. Thanks to social media, to an extent. Social media at one level allows me to amplify my opinion or my view, at another level, I feel bad when the opinion is challenged. That’s what’s happening to individuals. Diversity of thought, and diversity of logic, is what an organisation should shoot for, over and above diversity of ratio and diversity of generations, etc. 

Do you think organisations will continue to emphasise diversity of ratios, or are they now prioritising diversity of thought over diversity of ratios? 

The debate on the diversity of ratios is interesting. Affirmative action is necessary. For years, women have been underrepresented in top roles across organisations. Let me give you a simple stat: in the top management of media in India, only 13 per cent are women. If you believe the media is responsible for broadcasting key messages on diversity, they’re themselves doing very poorly on that end, plain and simple. So where does affirmative action end? That’s a question every company, government, and society needs to consider. I believe if the ratio of men to women is 50:50, reaching about 40 per cent representation of women is fantastic. The key thing is, a woman should not be given a pass, and a man should not feel that it’s not meritorious. The moment a man feels that this path is not meritorious, then it is dangerous for that company or society. It’s extremely important not to drop your standards while pursuing any diversity issue. For instance, imagine if the Indian cricket team were composed of two people from Mumbai, two from Calcutta, and two from Delhi. Would you get the best team? But if there are 10 people from Ranchi, so be it, if it’s the best team out there. That’s exactly what’s happening with the IPL. You see the best performance because you’re selecting the best talent, without any concern for ratios, except for the foreign players. 

There’s a growing mismatch of mindset between generations, especially considering that older generations still lead most companies. They often have a ‘my way or the highway’ attitude, and bridging this gap is a challenge…

Every generation thinks that the previous generation is no good. If it’s two generations ago, you’ll think those guys have no clue. So, if you go back to the 60s, the Levi’s generation, who are now all the baby boomers, thought the world was absolute rubbish. Back then, Coca-Cola had this commercial where it said, ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony.’ People protested against the Vietnam War, they did all kinds of things, thinking the old fogies were no good. That’s true for this generation as well.

But what’s outstanding about this generation is they’re extremely articulate, tech-savvy, and they take multiple times more risks than anyone else.

Next, their respect for hierarchy is low. They want their voice to be counted. Now, you’re assuming that someone in their 40s or 50s is stuck in a ‘my way or the highway’ mindset. In my experience in India, many young entrepreneurs exhibit the ‘my way or the highway’ attitude more than anyone else. Many of these upstart CEOs of upstart companies, I won’t name them, they’re terrible. The kind of stories I hear about some of these guys just amazes me. This brings us back to the values and culture of an organisation. By and large, multinationals are forced to have a semblance of values and culture. Indian companies and startups are largely defined by the values, energy, and culture set by the owner. These are two different worlds. You can’t expect the practices of one to completely merge with the other, and vice versa. 

Can emotional intelligence help navigate workforce diversity and improve communication within organisations? 

Absolutely. In fact, numerous studies indicate that in the future of work, 60 per cent of jobs will be predominantly reliant on soft skills rather than hard skills. There’s a prevailing train of thought advocating for hiring based on soft skills as opposed to hard skills — the rationale being hard skills can always be trained, whereas training someone on soft skills is often more challenging. So, there’s already a prevailing notion that says, hire more for soft skills. When I look at people, I always assess whether the person has the right attitude. Is the person collaborative? If she is willing to accept failure and learn from it? If those are a tick in my book, then I believe I have the right kind of person to work in my company. 

Given the rapidly changing corporate landscape, is business school education still relevant today? As someone who sits on multiple B-school boards, what changes do you think are necessary to ensure their continued relevance in the future?

B-schools should prioritise skills over subjects. With 60% of future jobs relying on soft skills, emphasis on problem-solving, creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication is key!

It’s a fair challenge. Currently, I sit on five business school boards. I sat on three earlier. I keep pushing B-schools to change. Here’s my observation for you. A business school I have the highest respect for is ISB, the Indian School of Business. IIMs have been around for 50-60 years, but they have not been able to do what ISB has done over the last 20 years. One must appreciate that. I believe business school education is on the brink of fundamental change. With approximately 13,000 business schools worldwide, including 6,000 in India, change is necessary. India graduates nearly six lakh MBAs annually, but only 19 per cent are deemed employable. Shockingly, only about 20 schools offer an average starting salary higher than the fees paid. Even in many IIMs, the ratio is below one. So, do we have a problem? Yes, we have a problem of plenty. Do we have a problem of quality? Absolutely. What does a great business school depend on? It depends on outstanding students — an intake of great students. It depends on a rockstar faculty! It depends on the student experience on campus. And it depends on recruiters. These four combined together determine its ranking or reputation. What would I do differently? I’d shift from subjects to skills. That’s the message I’m advocating to all the B-school boards I’m part of. For instance, while economics is taught as a subject, do you really need to learn it in business school? You can learn it on your own. Instead, I would prioritise skills like complex problemsolving, creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. We need to push the skill agenda much more because that’s what the future world demands, not just degrees. A degree is a collective ensemble of subjects. Whereas a personality is a collective ensemble of skills. I would rather focus on skills. It’s a critical question, and as leaders of industry and responsible board members, we need to address it.

 I spoke with the CEO of a major automobile company about their senior leadership training programme. He mentioned that while their leadership team excels in their current roles, they struggle to foresee future challenges. How can we better train them to anticipate and prepare for the future? 

Data shows that industries often have blinders on when thinking about their own future. To gain insights, you shouldn’t ask people within the industry itself. Take the automobile industry, for example. Despite having around 150 global players, none of them foresaw electric vehicles (EVs) coming. This is intriguing because the first electric car was made back in 1956. Where did EVs come from then? Companies like Tesla and BYD! Tesla, unrelated to traditional internal combustion engine mobility, became a pioneer in EVs. Similarly, BYD, once a battery supplier to Nokia, recognised the value of batteries and shifted focus to EVs, realising they were better positioned in this niche than companies like Ford, GM, or Volkswagen. I strongly recommend that senior leaders engage with individuals outside their industry, especially those on the leading edge. For instance, many FMCG companies are struggling and attributing it to macroeconomic situations, waiting for GDP growth to rise. It’s a flawed approach. They should be reaching out to digital experts, forming partnerships. That’s the only way they’ll see growth. The more they cling to the past, the slower their growth will be. An interesting study by Forbes on CEOs supports this notion. Last month, 45 per cent of surveyed CEOs admitted that if they continue with their current thinking and business models, their companies won’t exist in 10 years. This figure was 39 per cent last year. CEOs themselves are recognising the rapidly changing world. They need to look at evolving industries, understand why consumers are changing, and integrate these changes into their sectors.