Background
This piece was written in Facebook Notes in around 2015, before the Delhi Assembly Elections, in which Aam Admi Party won a thumping majority winning 67 seats out of 70. They were the Davids fighting the mighty and corrupt Goliaths. The name ‘Delhi Dare DAVIDS’ is derived from ‘Delhi Dare Devils’, which was the the name of Delhi’s IPL Cricket team then)

I plead to all Indians to give moral support to the Delhi Davids to fight the Goliaths of corruption. They need our support to succeed, to give us a better world. Can we be generous enough to say:

1. We understand that you are risking your life and the lives of your family so that we and our children have a better life.

2. We know that fighting corruption is extremely difficult. You are fighting the most powerful and most unethical people in India. They are all uniting to ensure that you fail.

3. We all will unite too – it will be ‘WE’ against the Corrupt, not YOU against the Corrupt!!

4. Cutting across party lines and our party preferences, we will support the fight against corruption which has made our life miserable and threatens to completely destroy our moral fabric.

5. For the corrupt, most of whom are masked do-gooders, it is a question of life and death. They will go to any length to ridicule you, to malign you and to brainwash us into believing that you are fools, criminals, greedy of power.

6. We understand that you cannot be greedy of power. Power greedy people would only lick the boots of the powerful and the corrupt, they would never fight them the way you are doing. You, the “Delhi Dare Davids” are fighting the mighty Goliaths.

7. Some of us who call you power hungry are being naive. Obviously, no fool will value power more than his or her life.

8. We appreciate that you are fighting not only the corrupt. There is a big mighty group of religious fanatics who are dead opposed to you just because they are madly in love with some of your opponents. This group stoops to any level to malign you. Your task therefore is doubly difficult.

9. We understand that you have a third enemy. You do not have a level playing field. Delhi’s statehood laws have never been fully tested because we Indians never work by rules. “You scratch my back, I scratch yours” or “give and take” is our normal way of working. So it may need ironing out of the law if you want to work by the law.

10. You actually have a fourth enemy: the Indian Mindset!!. “Working by law” is an unfamiliar term for us Indians so some of us are finding it awkward when you want to work by rules. We also believe that nothing can change in India. We will have to live with this Indian mentality for some more time till we succeed in changing our mindsets.

11. You are the first to take up such a brave and risky task. We understand that you are first time administrators in politics and may make some mistakes. But never mind, we are solidly behind you.

12. We understand that you cannot fight this battle alone. This fight can only be won with mass support. You are trying hard and doing all ‘acrobatics’ (which your ignorant opponents call ‘nautanki’) to awaken us Indians from slumber into joining the fight. Just like Kamal Hassan does nautanki and acrobatics to ‘move’ Sridevi in the last shot of film ‘Sadma’, but unfortunately, Sridevi was unmoved. But you no longer have to do that. We are awake now and are with you.

Fig. 1 : Kamal Hassan trying to ‘move’ Sridevi with acrobatics in the film ‘Sadma’. See Point No. 12 Above (Image Courtesy: YouTube)

Fig. 2: Sridevi, like the people of India, is unmoved. See Point No. 12 Above (Image Courtesy: YouTube)

13. Some of us may feel that fighting corruption is not the most critical problem for India. There are other more critical problems to be addressed. But we appreciate that different people will have different views and you can’t please all. You are passionate about corruption since you have experienced it and you feel you can provide a solution. We will support you in your passion. After all you are only doing good by trying to reduce corruption.

14. I have no qualms in admitting that I am a coward and always have been a coward. If I was not a coward, the country’s politics and society would not have come to this pass. I never had the courage that you have to speak out openly against the mighty corrupt. I will not be so mean to keep pulling your legs and criticising you when I do not have the guts to do what you are doing.

15. We know that if all of us unite and merely give you moral support, it will go a long way in weakening your opponents and giving you the strength to fight them. All we need to do is speak out against the corrupt (just in social media if not in the open). We may be cowards, but after all, we make the electorate

16. We will resist from giving armchair advise. We may give you suggestions, but you are free to accept or reject them as you know best what is the situation on ground zero, you know where the shoe pinches, you are on the hot seat, not we.

17. Anna used to say we are the masters and ministers are our servants. We would not like to be and have never been masters, but have certainly been good managers in offices. Like good managers, we will learn to delegate and give you the best environment to work, give you the time and freedom to produce results. We will also hold you accountable at the right time if there is no result.

18. We will say in one voice “Thums up to the Delhi Dare Davids for fighting the Goliaths”!!

Why should we always think of people as villains? There are good people in this world. I am betting on them as guys with good intentions. I may be proved wrong – only time will tell. But I feel confident I will not. Please add if you think I have missed out on some. I know there will be strong views too against this post. I know I will need help from like minded people to brainstorm. The best thing is to ask for help when you know you will need some.

The book ‘God in Two Minutes’ is now available in both e-book format and print formats.

This article provides a brief summary of the book and details on where to purchase it.

Book Intro

In a world divided by religion, Prem Kamble poses a compelling question: Has religion become a source of hatred and conflict due to an inherent flaw?

This thought-provoking book challenges deep-seated beliefs about religion, spirituality, and God, offering bold and fresh insights. While physical science has debunked myths about the external world, our inner mental world of thoughts, emotions, and spirituality remains mysterious. Could some of today’s spiritual beliefs be myths awaiting exposure by future scientific discoveries, just as misconceptions about the flat Earth once were?

Kamble introduces “Mentomatics” and “Prem Spirituality Model” to revolutionize our understanding of the mind and spirituality. Just as Mathematics unlocked the complexities of the physical world, Mentomatics could spark a spiritual revolution as transformative as the mathematics-driven industrial and information revolutions. The book calls for a “re-engineering of religion” to achieve the benevolent goals envisioned by ancient spiritual leaders. Kamble envisions a future where science and spirituality evolve together, fostering a world free of religious conflict, with spiritually elevated individuals creating a harmonious and enlightened existence.

Where to Buy

The book is available in ebook and print format in several bookstores across the world in local currency.

The book can be found in both ebook and print formats at various bookstores worldwide, with prices listed in local currencies. To find all the stores where the e-book and paperback are available, follow this link:

https://premkamble.com/buybook.htm

Once on the page, click on a store icon to make your purchase. For Indian currency, choose Kobo for ebook and Pothi.com for paperback.

Summary:

This is a true case story listing the Key Success Factors that led to the delivery of all software projects on time. This was a record by me in a SEI Level 5 software company.

[This story was published in a reputed online magazine Sulekha.com. It has been copied and reproduced below as the site is extremely slow to load. It is still available at sulekha.com website at this link. (Note: If you clicked on this link, please wait patiently till the article loads.)].

Introduction

It was a bright sunny morning and I was feeling as energetic as ever as I entered my office. My team had just completed a software project for my client Mondaq, UK. My Project Manager and Technical leader had successfully delivered the custom developed software solution to the client and returned from the UK that morning. On reaching my room, I settled comfortably in my seat and opened my mail Inbox. When I looked at the first mail from my client Mondaq, I was in for a shock. The mail read,

“The management of Mondaq is shocked to know that…”

I missed a heartbeat thinking that all hell had broken loose at my client’s site. Images quickly started building in front of my mind’s eye — images depicting that the delivered software solution was either not performing or had crashed, and my client was furious. I feared the worst.

Reading further, I was pleasantly surprised. The mail read: “The management of Mondaq is shocked to know that the site went live on the day it was supposed to.”

Mondaq was my first client after joining a new company. That was enough reason to be concerned, and luckily it was only for that moment and never again. For, thereafter, I am extremely happy to state that five client projects have been delivered on time and to the utmost delight of the customer. All my clients are simply delighted. One of my clients who is the MD of another firm in the UK was recently in India, and he told me that even in the UK he had rarely seen projects being delivered both on time and to specifications.

The completed projects have some unique features:

Key Success Factors

People have asked me the secret behind this success. Frankly, I did not myself know, but their questions have prompted me to do some thinking, some soul searching and I have come to some conclusions. Right or wrong, I thought it was worth sharing my thoughts.

Team Strength

The most significant factor, according to me, which could have contributed to it is an understanding that each human being has strengths and weaknesses. Nobody is perfect. I am not perfect too.

This is a very important issue which is often forgotten. Different people have different strengths — some people can do certain things naturally and the same people may be very uncomfortable or messy while doing something else. At the same time, different people enjoy doing different types of work. While some people may enjoy doing one job, some may just not be able to sit down and get going with it. This is perfectly natural for human beings.

A good manager would look at the strengths of people, and get the right jobs done by the right people within the team so that the team as a whole is strong, so that the team delivers. There are certain things my Project Managers are good at doing and certain things they may not be very good at. I help them sometimes do things they are not comfortable with if I can do it better. I don’t get upset about it because I know that there may be umpteen other things they can do better than I can. What is important is that together we should team up and do great things.

In a team, it is important that one member’s weakness is covered by someone else’s individual strengths in such a way that each one contributes through his strengths and the team as an entity is solid. A good team is one where everyone puts in his or her strength and covers others’ weaknesses — without any ego problems, without taking pride and without belittling others.

I am sure you will ask, “With this approach, you can never help people overcome their weaknesses.” On the contrary, a good manager uses the strengths of his teammates while slowly working on their weaknesses, so that the weaknesses are overcome without making the teammate too conscious of his or her deficiencies. A person normally does a great job when working on a job that he loves to do. Success is a big motivator and the motivation of a job well done gives him the energy to do other jobs which he does not like to do, and thus also helps him overcome his shortcomings in the course of time. A motivated person can work on his weaknesses better than a person who cannot even use his strengths. I believe that it is the manager’s job to see that the individual’s strength is used and he feels motivated.

I have seen some people who mainly look at the weaknesses and keep pointing out errors and personal deficiencies. Nagging a person for his weaknesses makes him very conscious of himself and it reduces his confidence in his strengths. Only a very strong person, who is truly self-motivated and strongly believes in himself, can continue to perform consistently in spite of continuous nagging by his superior.

Commitment

The other very important factor is a strong commitment to deliver on time.

This may sound trivial, but it is this commitment that drives you to see that you deliver on time. When you believe that software projects are never on schedule, then you are unlikely to deliver on time. This commitment begins with and is evident in small things. Ask yourself a few questions: When you schedule a meeting at a particular time, or you are attending a meeting, how committed are you to be there on time and begin on time? Do you feel committed to keep your word given to your friend or colleague? When you can start honoring these small commitments, you can keep bigger commitments like delivering a software project on time.

Belief in People

The other factors which have contributed to the success are a strong belief in people, particularly IT people and immense trust in their integrity. I believe that most IT personnel normally try to give their best. They do not need to be driven. They are self-motivated. A sure way to de-motivate them is to doubt their commitment. And lastly, a high degree of motivation to give their best comes from the right amount of freedom given to the Project Leaders and team members.

Click here for your feedback and comments.

Summary

This article was initially written in Facebook Note in Nov. 2016 (Link: https://bit.ly/pkcorr1)

I strongly support the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) because, in the current context, it is the most effective and viable option to combat corruption in India, as outlined in this article. Therefore, my support is for AAP. The ultimate goal is a corruption-free or less corrupt political system, and there may be various means to achieve that goal. If tomorrow, there is a better means, or another party presents itself as a better option, I will have no hesitation in switching loyalties. For me, the goal matters more than the means. However, for now, AAP is the most capable means. No other party possesses the know-how or the expertise to lead such a widespread social movement.

Introduction/Background

Some people mistakenly believe that I am a die-hard AAP supporter. In truth, I am a staunch advocate for the Anti-Corruption Movement. India’s political system is deeply corrupt and immoral, and it urgently needs reform. The movement is the goal; AAP is simply the vehicle. The goal is paramount, not the means.

Today, I believe AAP is the best method to achieve this goal (explained in the next section). Hence, my support for AAP today, and will remain as long as AAP remains the most effective means. If another party shows greater promise tomorrow, I will switch loyalty to that party on this issue without hesitation.

I emphasize – it’s the goal that matters, not the means. Too often, we err by focusing on the means and losing sight of the larger objective.

Why AAP is the Best Bet Today

Here’s why I believe AAP offers the most promising approach to fight corruption among the current options. Fighting corruption requires social change through a people’s movement. Only a movement of the people can eradicate this evil, and AAP is the only party speaking about social change through such a movement.

While Modi claimed that HE WOULD REMOVE CORRUPTION if people voted him to power, Kejriwal said, “WE WILL TOGETHER FIGHT CORRUPTION” if he was elected. He said that the people were the prime movers of change, and that he was only a facilitator.  His approach shows a deeper understanding of the psychology of social change, a concept few grasp.

Having deeply studied the psychology of technological change as IT Head in a corporate environment, I can appreciate the challenges of leading a mass social change at the national level. Both involve transforming mindsets and behaviors, a formidable task by any measure.

(You can learn more about the psychology of technological change by searching “Behavioral IT”, or you may click here for more.)

Not many understand the psychology of social change. Today Kejriwal’s IAC team is the only one having the know-how to bring about a social change. No other party or group has the inclination or knowledge to bring about this transformation.

AAP is a new party with no baggage. The older political parties are so deeply entrenched in corruption that even the most honest leaders within them are unlikely to succeed, as the corrupt elements within will sabotage their efforts. These parties are also intertwined. While showing an outward hostility, they have an unwritten agreement to protect one another, no matter who is in power. So there is no hope from any of the established parties.

People’s Movement – Now or Never

To create a mass movement, you need to unite people for a cause. It is extremely difficult to unite people, and so easy to divide them. We briefly stood united during the Anna Hazare and Kejriwal-led anti-corruption movement. However, a group driven by anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan sentiments, eager to see Modi as Prime Minister, divided us once again. And like fools we fell in their trap. For these individuals, targeting a community and Pakistan seemed more important than improving our lives by creating a cleaner, less corrupt society!

Like fools, we are missing a golden opportunity to unite against corruption. It is now or never situation. If AAP fails, it will be our collective failure, not theirs, as we are the ones unwilling to unite and join the movement. Without our support, AAP will not succeed. Some foolishly wait for them to succeed before offering support, not realizing the catch-22 situation: they cannot succeed without our backing, and we do not want to join them unless they succeed. If we want them to succeed, we need to jump in and contribute, not sit on the fence as observers offering armchair advice.

In this age of social media, it’s easier to contribute. You don’t even need to take to the streets like we did during the Anna movement. You can start by offering moral support and showing solidarity online. A “Virtual Movement” can grow into something significant. Do not underestimate the power of the social media – it can unseat the Goliaths and the powerful perpetrators of corruption, because ultimately, they rely on your votes.

Let’s Show Some Maturity

We are displaying a lack of maturity and ignorance in understanding the psychology of social change. Kejriwal’s group once said that in order to clean the muck, they have to jump into it. (“keechad mein koodana hoga”). Having done that, they now have to adjust their strategies to navigate through this muck. They cannot simply swim or cruise through smoothly as though they are in clear water. We must allow them the flexibility to adapt to the muck, to change their strategy to negotiate through the muck. In Rome, you have to act like Romans. Whereas like fools we expect them to be Mr. Clean and cruise through the muck with same tools and techniques as if they are sailing in clear water.

Three mighty forces are ganging up against AAP: the entire opposition and central government; the powerful criminals and corrupt individuals for whom it is a matter of life and death to preserve their interests; and the religious extremists who want to support Modi for a different cause. These forces are undermining the movement, not AAP. Unless we, as Indians join forces to support the anti corruption movement, we will bequeath an exceedingly corrupt and immoral system to our children.

(Endnote: Religion has divided the world for the same reason – our failure to distinguish between the goal and the means. The concept of God and religion is merely a means to a higher goal – achieving a higher spiritual state. More on this later. In the meantime, you can read a brief summary at https://premkamble.com/god2, or read my book God in Two Minutes.)

Also Read:

1. Indians! Wake up to Fight Corruption and Goonda Raj
2. God in Two Minutes my ebook at Amazon.com
3. The Great Indian Apathy
4. Indians! Wake up to Quality
5. My Blog
6. We Indians need to Think outside our Conditioning
7. Thums up to the Delhi Dare DAVIDs – An Appeal to All Indians
8. We the Impotent People of India

Background

This article was first published in Facebook on 6th February 2015, a day before the Delhi Assembly elections (https://bit.ly/pkconditioning). Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), a relatively new and small party, was contesting the elections challenging the dirty Indian political system deeply entrenched in corruption. It was a battle of the Davids against the mighty and criminal Goliaths of the system, with AAP striving to achieve the seemingly impossible task of cleansing the system. Their leader Arvind Kejriwal was labeled “yeda”, meaning mad in Marathi language, by a ruling minister. Hence the volunteers of AAP have been sarcastically referred to as “mad guys”. This so-called ‘yeda’ group demonstrated how to break free from conventional conditioning (or, in other words, think ‘outside your conditioning’). AAP party later won the election with record breaking majority, winning 67 of the 70 assembly seats

Summary

This piece explains what is psychological conditioning and how we Indians are politically conditioned.

Thinking outside Your Conditioning?

You may have heard the phrase “thinking outside the box”. But what exactly is “Thinking outside Your Conditioning”? I did not know either until a group of so-called “mad” guys opened my eyes to what it truly means to “think outside your conditioning”.

“To grasp the concept of thinking  outside your conditioning”, they told me, “you first need to understand what conditioning actually is.”

They showed me a cartoon in today’s Times of India.

(Image Courtesy The Times of India)

“I don’t get it. What does this have to do with conditioning?” I asked, puzzled.

Elephant Tied to a Stake

“Ok. Let us explain it differently. Have you ever been to a circus?”, they asked.

“Yes”, I replied.

“Have you noticed that after a performance, an elephant is typically tied with a small chain to a weak stake in the ground—something it could easily pull out and break free from, but it doesn’t?”

“Why”, I asked.

“Because when the elephant was a baby, it was tied to the same chain. It pulled hard on it trying to escape, until its legs bled causing severe pain. Now, despite being one of the most powerful animals, it doesn’t even try to escape because it remembers that pain.

It is now conditioned to believe that once the chain is tied to its leg, it must stay within its limited range. The elephant may no longer consciously recall the pain, but its subconscious mind does, preventing it from even attempting to break free.”

At that point, the concept of conditioning began to penetrate my hard skull.

But they did not stop there.

“Let us take an example from your own life. You are an Indian, right?”

“Yes, very much so. And a proud Indian at that,” I replied.

“Let’s explore how the average Indian mind is conditioned and why it’s so difficult to break free from this conditioning.”

Bound by Multiple Chains?

“You mean I am conditioned too?”

“Yes. While the elephant is tied by just one chain, you and I are bound by several”

“And you are going to explain to me how I am conditioned? No way. I am a free thinker. I am not conditioned, blah blah blah…” I protested. “Maybe you should explain this to someone else”

“Do you have children?”

“Yes I do.”

“Have you ever considered sending your children to a government or municipal school?”

“No. You mean those schools with run-down buildings and kids in dirty uniforms? Are you crazy? I KNOW that those schools are not for me or my children. They are for the poor.”

“Got it. What do you do when you need medical help?”

“I drive to the nearest doctor or hospital”

“Private or government?”

Now this was getting on my nerves. “Obviously private, you fools.”

“Why not to a government hospital or health centre?”

“Stop annoying me! The Government hospitals and health centres are for the poor, not for me.”

“So when you need medical help, without a second thought, you head to a private hospital or practitioner and spend a fortune. The thought of going to the govt hospital where treatment could be much cheaper or even free, does not even cross your mind?”

“Of course not”.

But have you ever thought, “Why can’t these schools and hospitals be made good enough for me? You pay taxes, right?”

“Yes, I do.”

“Have you ever demanded that these schools and hospitals be made good enough for you, as you have paid taxes? You have been conditioned to believe that they are only for the poor, not for you”.

“Oh, maybe.”

“For years, these institutions have been so bad that you have come to accept that private schools and hospitals are YOUR ONLY OPTIONS. What if I told you that these schools could be improved so much that you would want to send your children there?”

“What? My kid in government schools? Never!!” I protested.

“You are resisting because you are as conditioned as the elephant. Not just you, all of us are conditioned beings. If I told the elephant that it could break free, it would protest like you and would call me a fool.”

“So if you and I are like the elephant, I can call you a fool, right?” I joked, though I was starting to recognize my blind spots. These government schools and hospitals had been like blind spots to me – they simply didn’t exist in my life or mind.

“Oh, you can call us whatever you like. We’ve already been called “yeda” (meaning “mad” in Marathi), anarchists,  communist and what not. In fact, the former Home Minister once called our leader Arvind Kejriwal ‘yeda’.”

Opening My Eyes

This “yeda” group of AAP volunteers opened my eyes for the first time.  Yes, why shouldn’t government institutions be as good as private ones? Why can’t they serve me too? I had never thought about it that way before. After all, they’re funded by my money.

I KNOW  the taxes I pay are enough to sustain quality services. I also know that much of the money is siphoned off and never reaches me. But I had never questioned it. I had been conditioned to believe these institutions weren’t for me. Even the poor have stopped demanding better services from the government. They too are conditioned to believe that they could expect only the bare minimum from government institutions – they couldn’t ask for more.

I realized I had become a slave to private doctors and schools, many of which are run by political bigwigs) who fleece me. Most of these institutions openly demand under-the-table payments. I realized I had completely resigned myself to this fate. I was conditioned, and my apathy (“nothing will ever change in India”) prevented me from thinking the way these ‘yedas’ did.

I realized THERE WAS AN URGENT NEED FOR CHANGE. I had to completely shift my way of thinking.

“So you want me to think outside the box?” I asked. “But that is really difficult”.

“No. you need to ‘Think outside Your Conditioning’. And that is even harder than thinking outside the box”. I could see a sarcastic smile.

“I am starting to get that… “

They had nearly opened my eyes to my blind spots. But I was still confused about the cartoon they had shown me earlier.

“But what does that cartoon with the three dogs have to do with conditioning?” I asked.

The Goons Around Me

(Image Courtesy The Times of India)

“You see that dog in the centre with that faint, beatific smile? That’s you and me. And the two dogs sitting beside it represent the goons, who are an omnipresent part of our society and political system.”

“I see.”

“You have grown up hearing that these goons could harm you and your family if you speak up, especially against those in power. You have grown up seeing these snarling dogs, and over time, you’ve forgotten how to bark back. You have lost your freedom of speech. You have been conditioned to remain silent, maintaining that beatific smile.”

“That’s scary!” I could now see that the two dogs were like my blind spots. I had always been aware of them subconsciously, but had learned to ignore them in my daily life. They could be seen, but were unseen by me.

“And you have been conditioned to believe that these two growling dogs (representing mainly political goondaism in our society) can never go away.”

Wow! I now clearly see that I have lost my freedom of speech.”

“But you still have the freedom to vote. And with your vote, you can get rid of those two dogs”

The Power to Vote

That’s when I truly realized the power in my hands. I immediately got up, and my feet led me straight to the voting booth.

On the way to the booth I encountered more members of this ”yeda” group. And I soon discovered even more reasons why they earned the label of “yeda.” Not only do they encourage you to think beyond your conditioning, but they also dare to take on the corrupt and the mighty mighty criminals of Indian political system!

Yes, it takes a “yeda” mind to even consider doing that!!!

[Images: Courtesy http://lifesroadsigns.com]

Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

Summary: 

This paper was presented at AICTE Sponsored National e-Conference 2020 titled “The Role of Management Practices in Business Sustainability in an Era of Technology Disruptions”.

Technology changes fast, but it takes generations to change the minds and behaviour of people. It is natural for people to resist change. The real problem, then, is not technology, but the basic human instinct to resist change. The vehicle of business runs on two uneven wheels – one wheel (technology) runs at jet speed and the other (people/mindsets) at bullock cart speed. It is extremely important to address this “inertia of the human mind” to sustain businesses.

Since the problem is behavioral and not technical, you need a solution with a behavioural approach. Hence the author has coined a new term called “Behavioral IT^®” to address the social issues of IT. Behavioral IT can be looked at as a new field of study, a managerial skill or/and a strategy which deals with the psychological, behavioural and attitudinal aspects of technological change.

Business Sustainability stands on three pillars: Environmental Sustainability, Economic Sustainability and Social Sustainability. Behavioral IT^® contributes directly to social and economic sustainability, which are relatively overlooked aspects of sustainability.

ABSTRACT

For sustaining businesses in a VUCA World, or a world with Vulnerability, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity, it is important to address the primary cause of VUCA. The culprit is the rapidly changing technology, more significantly the Information Technology. Though the primary driver of change today is IT, not many change management courses discuss how to manage IT-Driven change.

It is natural for people to resist change. The real problem, then, is not technology, but the basic human instinct to resist change. Technology changes fast, but it takes generations to change the minds and behaviour of people. The vehicle of businesses runs on two uneven wheels – one wheel (technology) runs at jet speed and the other (people) at bullock cart speed. It is extremely important to address this “inertia of the human mind” to sustain businesses.

To deal with the social sustainability problems arising out of Information Technology, you need a solution with a behavioural approach. Hence the author has coined a new term called “Behavioral IT^®” to address the social issues of IT (Ref.2 “Managers Don’t Need IT Skills..”). Behavioral IT can be looked at as a new field of study, a managerial skill or/and a strategy which deals with the psychological, behavioural and attitudinal aspects of technological change. Most of what we will discuss in this paper can be classified as “Behavioral IT^®” concepts.

Man has gone through a major disruption before – that of the industrial revolution. It took over 100 years for the human mind to cope with machines. We had just mastered the disruption of machines when we got another jolt with the onslaught of computers and another revolution – the information revolution.

The inertia of the mind caused us to look at the onslaught of computers as just an introduction of yet another machine (maybe super machine) and to use our old industrial age mindset to tackle this change. But is the computer a completely different animal as compared to the industrial age machine? Do we need a mindset different from the industrial mindset to tackle this revolution and the VUCA world? What is this information age mindset that will correct this inertia of the mind? This paper tries to answer these questions. Over 70% failures in IT projects indicates that something is seriously wrong.Preview(opens in a new tab)

This paper is a study of evolution of human psychology from the industrial-age to the information-age. It takes a multidisciplinary approach with major stress on psychology of change. It looks at the key features of information technology in contrast to the industrial one to draw useful conclusions as to what we need to learn and unlearn from the past to ensure a smoother change.

This paper is useful for all CXO’s, managers, heads of companies and heads of departments – in short, for all the change drivers or change catalysts in businesses. It is of course useful for students of management too.

Keywords:

People aspects of IT, Behavioral Aspects of IT, Behavioral IT, IT-Driven Change Management, Psychology of Change, IT Soft-Skills, IT for CXOs, IT for Corporate Leaders, IT Strategy, IT Disruption.

1. INTRODUCTION

Business sustainability stands on three pillars – Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability. Unfortunately, though important, social sustainability has had considerably less attention than economic and environmental sustainability.

This paper focuses on this often overlooked aspect of sustainability. Since it is overlooked, it is not understood too. So let me start with highlighting some key aspects of social sustainability that need emphasis:

Social Sustainability talks of Sustainable Human Development, work-life-balance, wellness of people, good quality of life both at work and at home, not just for the employees but also for the family and society at large.

Moreover, since the focus is on sustainability in the VUCA world (or a world of vulnerability, uncertainty, confusion and ambiguity), it needs no emphasis that VUCA creates stress and tension, impacting health, well-being and overall quality of life.

This paper tries to go to the root cause of VUCA and explores what can be done to reduce this uncertainty, confusion, pressure, tension and stress to improve the quality of life and overall well-being.

It is no secret that the primary cause of VUCA is the rapidly changing technology and the disruptions caused by the change, which people are unable to cope with. It is also true that Information technology is the fastest-changing technology among all technologies. It is the most prominent cause of disruption and is entering almost all walks of life.

This paper looks at this technology and examines how it is contributing to VUCA, and what can be done to soften its impact.

Strangely there is a lot of euphoria about IT. IT scenario looks so very rosy that few would believe that IT could be the cause of confusion and stress. The spread of social networks and the use of electronic tools and gadgets like mobiles, laptops, PowerPoint presentations, etc. amongst GenY gives an impression that everything is hunky-dory in IT.

But if you peep into what is happening in businesses trying to implement IT/ERP projects, you can see major upheavals during IT implementations, friction and conflict among people due to overwork and fatigue, and blame game and politics due to high failures. As per researchers, there are above 70% failures in IT projects (75% as per [Ref.9]. Simply google on “IT Failures” to find more). The picture inside businesses trying to introduce ERP/IT is not so rosy. With 70% failures, it can be anything but rosy – in fact, it is miserable. IT implementations cause stress due to overwork, ambiguity, unfamiliarity and change. The high rate of failures causes finger-pointing, blame game and politics. This is a big contributor to VUCA, stress and lack of wellbeing.

The author believes that the problem is not with technology, it is with the people. People naturally resist change. Technology changes fast but it takes generations to change the minds and behaviour of humans. I call it the “inertia of the human mind”. To deal with the social problems arising out of Information Technology, you need a solution with a behavioural approach. Hence the author has coined a new term called “Behavioral IT^®” to address the social issues of IT (Ref.2 “Managers Don’t Need IT Skills..”). Behavioral IT can be looked at as a new field of study, a managerial skill or/and a strategy which deals with the psychological, behavioural and attitudinal aspects of technological change. Most of what we will discuss in this paper can be classified as “Behavioral IT^®” concepts.

Technology and people are two important wheels on which the businesses run, but unfortunately, one wheel runs at jet speed and the other wheel runs at bullock cart speed. While technology has changed from industrial technology to information technology, from machines to computers, human minds are still in the industrial era. Man still has an industrial-age mindset.

So how do we bring the other wheel to speed? How to overcome the inertia of the mind? We like to make rapid upgrades in Software, but what about upgrades to our minds?

Business Managers need to mentally evolve from the industrial-age psyche to the information-age psychology to successfully face the challenges thrown by IT-driven change. This paper discusses how to leapfrog into the information era by changing our machine age mindset.

Upgrading our minds to information psyche from industrial psychology will help improve social sustainability in multiple ways:

1. Since the cause of failure are people and people’s mindsets, upgrading minds will help reduce failure, reduce the overall time for transition. Fewer failures and more automation will ensure more efficiency and better processes, resulting in less stress and more free time for employees.
2. It will cut conflicts and promote collaboration, reduce stress during IT transitions, cut politics, thereby promoting corporate harmony and improving wellbeing.
3. The impact will be seen not only with the employees but their families too. Less stress and more free time would mean that employees can spend more stress-free and quality time with their families resulting in family wellbeing.
4. In the long run, increased human productivity through reduced conflicts will lead to higher profits. More success in automation would mean industrial growth, overall prosperity, a better world and happier people.

Man has already gone through the shocks of industrial revolution. Not many, particularly of the younger generation, know that man went through 100 years of turmoil of industrial revolution. WUCA is a result of the turmoil of the information revolution. A study of the industrial revolution can help us to be wiser to tackle this turmoil of the information revolution and contribute to social sustainability.

Upgrading to the information age mindset should not be as difficult as it has been made out to be. There is a subtle change required in our outlook and the way we look at this technology called IT. This paper should work as an eye-opener to see that subtle change in outlook from the industrial age to the information age.

2. EXISTING SCENARIO: TURMOIL OF THE INFORMATION REVOLUTION

Computers are proliferating business organisations and entering every walk of our life. But a closer look will reveal that man is still not at ease with this device. He is perplexed, foxed, fidgety and sometimes angry while dealing with this creature.

Though the computerisation scenario may look very euphoric, if we peep into what is happening in most of the companies trying to automate processes using computers, it will be evident that deep inside, this technology is still foreign to us.

It is not uncommon to have computerised application systems shelved simply because the people for whom the application was built or configured do not accept it, or are not too keen to use it. The same people who seem very enthusiastic when they first view the system, seem to have cold feet and seem disinterested when it comes to putting it to actual use. “This system just does not meet my requirements. This is just not the way I wanted it. You have not understood my requirements.” These are familiar words that most systems professionals have heard from the users of computerised systems. Most systems look nice when viewed as a demo, but fail miserably when implemented.

The reasons can be many: the requirements were not given or understood properly, the information requirements were drafted without serious thoughts, the system needs to be modified to meet the new requirements and the IT personnel need more time to modify the system, and so on… Whatever be the reasons, the gap between the IT personnel and the end-user, or computer technology and the consumers of this technology is very evident.

Why aren’t computers having a smooth entry into the minds and lives of human beings? Why this confusion? Why this problem of acceptance of computers after years of introduction of this technology?

The situation is not so only in developing countries, it is so even in developed countries as the problem relates to the human species as a whole. It is a problem of the evolution of human psychology.

There are two very basic problems in our perception of computers. We have made fundamental mistakes while understanding computers due to which, however hard we try to be at ease with them, we find ourselves jittery and confused.

Our mental make-up which has been shaped and groomed in the machine age is unable to adjust itself in an age of computers. The very concepts of machines that have been shaped and developed in the machine age fail miserably when applied to computers. There is a very subtle difference in the way we should look at computers. When we realise this distinction, there will be a marked difference in our comprehension of computers.

What is this subtle difference that we have to see? How should a manager now look at computers and how should he change his outlook in order to see computers in the right perspective? We shall try to find answers to these questions in the following paragraphs.

First, let us look at some historical and psychological reasons for this state of affairs.

3. THE BACKGROUND AND THE LEGACY

3.1 Machine Culture of the Industrial Revolution

For a long time, man was accustomed to doing things manually both at home and at work. With the onslaught of machines came the Industrial Revolution. The industry changed and these changes brought with them their own cultural shocks. The turmoil of Industrial Revolution cannot be forgotten. Machines changed the work culture, changed everybody’s jobs, increased the scale of operations and created a need for organizational restructure and overhaul.

Man took considerable time to adapt to the industrial culture. The idea of work being performed by machines several times faster was both exhilarating and depressing – depressing due to the changes in the work culture. As centuries passed by, machines and mechanical thinking slowly started seeping into man’s mind-set. Slowly, man got used to the industrial and machine culture. He went through the pains and emerged victorious. It took generations for man but finally, he succeeded in evolving a new industrial culture. A new era dawned over mankind and man had mastered the change.

While man was evolving to the industrial psychology and the automation culture of speed, machines too were evolving. Initially, there were mainly mechanical machines. Then came electrical machines and finally the electronic ones.

Then came computers. As the industrial culture was deeply ingrained into his mental makeup (or mindset), he thought that the computer was just another machine. Armed with his centuries’ old knowledge and the experience of handling the change brought about by the introduction of machines, he went about adopting the same old approach to deal with the introduction of computers. He thought it was just another electronic machine.

What he did not realize was that it was not just the introduction of one more new electronic machine, but a dawn of a new era altogether, a change from the industrial era to the information era. He did not realize that just as Industrial era required a new culture, new thinking and new approach, Information era also demanded that he gave up old ideas and methods and adopted new ones to deal with computers and computerization.

3.2 Confusion Caused by the New ‘Machine’ Computer

Just as man was adapting to the machines of the machine age, there arrived on the scene this new ‘machine’ called computer to confuse him.

Man soon started to see some differences between the two machines. Whereas the old machine always did the same task, this electronic machine seemed capable of doing almost anything. Somewhere it was maintaining business accounts, somewhere preparing salaries and somewhere else controlling the factory. He had seen one machine perform one type of task. For instance, a car did the motor task. This new electronic machine could perform multiple tasks. Two computers looking exactly alike were doing completely different tasks.

There was something bewildering too about the computers. The industrial age machine did mechanical tasks which were clearly understood. You could see something happening before your eyes, as there were physical moving parts. On the other hand, computers had no moving parts. Something seemed to happen inside and yet it delivered wonders.

This new machine created by man was certainly very versatile, he thought. Man by now was immensely satisfied with machines since they did simple mechanical tasks much better than humans. So expectations of computers, the new electronic machine, rose sky-high. After all, computers were perceived as more versatile machines. The new machine would certainly cross all boundaries of human satisfaction, he thought. Man had seen computers do so many different tasks that he expected them to satisfy all his fancies.

Expectations showed clearly in businesses where people expected computers to do wonders. A manager expected the computer to satisfy his requirements immediately as he had seen so many computers do almost anything. He expected computers to satisfy all his needs and he expected quick results. He thought that his life would transform the moment the computers arrived at his premises. Moreover, as his business needs changed, he changed his processes on the fly and expected the computerized solution to instantly follow suit.

But the reality was unfortunately very different. To his utter disbelief, he found nothing happening although the computers were in place. (“It’s been ages since we brought in the automated solutions but things have not changed”). On the contrary, he was expected to go through a nightmare called “Implementation”, which he was not prepared for. The over-enthusiastic salesmen had painted such a rosy picture post arrival of computers, and reality was in stark contrast. He was surprised that his requirements were not being immediately addressed by computers. When he asked for a business process change, he was surprised that it could not be done so quickly. His ire showed on the technology folks. “Why can’t they understand my needs and my dynamic environment?” was his reaction.

When everything in the office was being done manually, the manager was so used to changing methods by simply instructing his clerk to do it differently. Since habits die hard, the manager did not change his habits and suddenly told the IT folks to change the business process and would expect the changes implemented immediately, just as he used to expect from his clerk in the manual system. When the IT department could not react so quickly to his changed need as his faithful clerk used to, he found it unacceptable.

The initial awe and respect for computers soon turned into bewilderment, frustration and finally disillusionment.

The frustration is evident in offices. When computers do not give exactly what you need, when IT folks do not understand, they are branded as “totally incompetent to deliver”. They cannot change the system immediately when you change your ways, and they ask too many awkward questions! “The computer folks keep asking me so many questions when I ask for a change. Clearly, they don’t want to do it. This computer department is a “Department of NO”.

The computer people seem to expect too much from you!

You protest, “Why do you guys (the so-called experts of the new versatile machine) expect so much from me when the old machines never demanded so much? I have been using other equipment like telephone, or an aircraft – and they never make so many demands from me. I don’t know anything about the aircraft, yet it serves me so well. It never expects me to learn the internals of the aircraft, nor to learn to fly the aircraft myself. I don’t change my ways to use the aircraft. But the IT folks want me to change my ways and learn to use the computer.”

We shall see later (in Section 9.1) the big fallacy in the above statement “I don’t know anything about the aircraft.”, but it shows that the frustration is real.

4. WHERE WE WENT WRONG – TWO MYTHS ABOUT COMPUTERS

Technology changes very fast but it takes generations for man to change his basic outlook. The main problem of acceptance of computers today is historical, psychological and cultural. We haven’t changed our outlook from the machine age to the age of computers. We have now got so much used to the machines of the industrial age that we look at computers too as just another machine.

One may ask, “What is wrong if we look at a computer as an electronic machine?” There lies the biggest problem. The basic mistake we make is that we look at the computer too as a machine of the machine age, and expect similar results. We approach computers as we would approach any other machine.

We make some very basic mistakes when we look at the computer as a machine. All the disillusionment, confusion etc. is a result of two misconceptions or myths about computers.

The following are the myths arising out of our machine age mindset are the root cause of most of the confusion 1. Computer is not a superior machine. It is far inferior to the machine age machines 2. Computer is not a Versatile Machine. 3. Computer is not a machine. There is no comparison. It is just a fuel running another machine. The real “machine” (if we are forced to compare) is the software. The following three statements, I am sure, will initially add to the confusion. But as you read further, they will make more sense.

1. Computer is NOT a superior machine. If you compare it with the machines of the industrial age, it is far, far inferior. If we look at their respective roles in terms of the human functions that they automate, the machines are far superior to the computers.

2. Computer is not the versatile machine as we have labelled it. The real “machine” which gives us the desired results is the software or the application program running inside. The computer is only the fuel running the “software machine”. Software gives a versatile image to the computer.

3. To add further to the confusion, software is also not really a machine, as it is very different from the machine of the industrial age that we know. We shall soon see how. Software is a new paradigm, and addressing it with a machine-age mindset is the third big mistake.

The root cause of the confusion is that we did not notice the paradigm change. We made the first mistake when we looked at the computer as not only a machine, but as a far superior machine. Even if we were to correct our perception and see the software as the real machine, we would still be erring (as we will see). So there is a need to unlearn the industrial culture that is so deeply ingrained into our psyche and look at software as a new paradigm.

Let us look at each of these myths.

5. MYTH – COMPUTER IS A SUPERIOR MACHINE

5.1 Machine Automates Our Physical Tasks, Computer Our Mental Chores

We think that the computer is very versatile and far superior when compared to other machines of the machine age. Since we are immensely satisfied with the machines, we expect bigger miracles and more satisfaction from computers. This is where our biggest folly lies. With such high expectations, naturally, there is more frustration. The computer is far inferior when compared to a machine. This may sound hard to believe, but we shall soon see how this is true. We can appreciate that the machine-age machines are far superior to man and computers far inferior to man if we look at the respective functions of man that they substitute. Whereas the machine automates the physical activities of man and is far superior to man, the computer falls far short of man and his brain in the mental functions which it attempts to simulate.

The normal machine of the machine age attempts to automate operations which man would have to do by physical labour. Machines serve our physical needs – they reduce our physical strain. Machines automate physical functions of man. A car does something which our legs would be doing otherwise. A lathe does the work of our hands.

A machine does the physical task several times faster and better than humans can do it. It is much faster, untiring and far more accurate than man. The machines have a clear edge over humans and we are immensely satisfied with the results. Machines are clear winners.

5.2 Computer is Far Inferior to the Machine-Age Machine

On the other hand, a computer attempts to automate our mental activities and reduce our intellectual work. It tries to automate the functions of our brain but falls miserably short of the human brain. Although the Computer does the calculations more accurately and much faster than humans, it fails miserably when it comes to other mental processes like decision-making or logical thinking. The computer just cannot do mental activity.

When there was a change in the manual work procedure in an office, all you had to do was to tell a human being and the change was effected. A human brain can quickly comprehend the changes and change the methods. Whereas in an automated process, it cannot be changed very fast. The Software machine needs to be re-configured or sometimes altered, and then it has to be thoroughly tested. The entire process is quite tedious and slow.

These are some simple facts that we have not come to terms with. The computer can post and print a thousand ledger entries in no time which a man would take days – but where a human being could detect a common sense error, the computer fails miserably. This is simply intolerable and unacceptable to our “machine-age-conditioned” minds. . This is one area where a change in mindset is necessary.

6. MYTH – COMPUTER IS A VERSATILE MACHINE

6.1 SOFTWARE GIVES THE VERSATILITY TO COMPUTERS

It is quite natural for us to believe that computers deliver some real miraculous stuff for us. But this belief can be one big source of confusion about computers. It is not the computer that does the miracles for you, but the software that is running inside and is invisible to the human eye.

As we see the same computer performing different tasks, the computer has wrongly attained an image of being very versatile. We think it is a machine which can perform multiple tasks. What is versatile is not the computer but the software. Very often we expect instant results from the computers. But in most cases, the software has to be configured or developed to suit our requirements, tested and implemented. We do not know that the real “machine” or the software may still not be ready.

We are used to seeing one machine perform one task, as in a car which performs the motor task. Since we wrongly look at the computer as the machine performing our task, we get bewildered to see the same machine performing so many tasks. We see it keeping accounts, paying your employees the salary, replacing your astrologer to give you your forecast, designing a machine, controlling a factory, and so on. This leaves the common man awe-struck and confused. This gives rise to his unrealistic expectation from the computer. He feels the computer can do anything.

With such an image of the computer in our minds, we start expecting results instantly. We expect computers to perform miracles at the keystroke. We expect computers to react and perform instantaneously. But when it does not, we get frustrated. We mistake it to be flexible also and expect it to adapt to our ways, whereas we do not want to change our ways.

This confusion will be removed if we see that it is one application software performing one job just like a machine. Just as the same fuel somewhere drives a car, somewhere a train or ship and somewhere else it drives a turbine to generate electricity, the same computer can run different programs to give different results.

6.2 SOFTWARE IS THE ‘MACHINE’, NOT COMPUTER

As we will see later, it is highly inappropriate to compare the computer with a machine of the industrial age, or even to compare the two technologies. But if you are forced to compare, the software, and not computer, comes vaguely close to a machine as it is the software which delivers the desired output.

The real ‘machine’ therefore is the software and not the computer.

The computer is only the fuel that runs the software machine. Just as the fuel in the car gives the piston the strokes one after another, the computer only kicks off the execution of each instruction of a program one after another. Just as what happens after the fuel ignition in an engine – whether it moves a motor, a railway engine, or drives a generator – depends on the rest of the machinery, what happens after the kicking off of the execution of instructions depends on the set of instructions which make up the application software. Moreover, whether a machine is running on electricity, diesel or petrol makes little difference to its user, say the car driver or the passenger. Similarly, running the same program on one computer instead of another gives you exactly the same result, maybe a little faster or slower.

These are some simple and obvious facts that most of us may know, but we do not realize the subtleties of the impact that they have on our approach to computers. A considerable amount of confusion about computers and computerisation will be removed once we start looking at the software as the ‘machine’ instead of the computer.

6.3 MORE CONFUSION: SOFTWARE IS NOT A “MACHINE”

There is more reason to add to the confusion. We said that the computer was not the machine but software was the real “machine”. The software which we have so far called the “machine” is not really a machine, at least not the same machine of the industrial era that we are so used to. It is a different concept altogether.

We are so used to the machine age that we expect computers to behave exactly like any other machines. Man has over the centuries got used to the machine of the industrial age. This is the reason why children adapt to computers much more easily than elders – because their minds are not trained to think ‘mechanically’ (or in terms of a mechanical sequence of movements or actions). In the case of elders, the mechanisation culture has seeped into their very mind-set which they need to unlearn. Software machine is different from the Industrial age machine. Therefore, we need to look at software not as any other machine, but in its right perspective.

A look at the differences between the industrial-age machine and software will help us to correct our perception.

7. SOFTWARE A NEW PARADIGM – WHY SOFTWARE IS NOT REALLY A “MACHINE”

Software is not really a machine-age “machine” as there are three fundamental differences between the machine and software. It is a new paradigm:

i. Whereas in the case of a machine, the machine is visible and the fuel is hidden, in case of computer, the machine (software) is not visible, and the fuel (computer) is visible.

ii. Whereas the normal machine automates the Physical activities of man, Software machine automates the mental processes. While the physical activity is similar in all human beings, mental processes are not uniform.

iii. Unlike the industrial age machine, software “machine” is easily alterable and flexible.

7.1 SOFTWARE MACHINE IS NOT VISIBLE

Normally you can see the machine, whereas the fuel acts behind the scene and is not visible. You can actually see the machine perform, you can see the physical movements, and thereby easily understand its operation, limitation, etc. In case of the computer, you can see the “fuel” (computer) but not the machine. In any case you cannot see any physical operation of the machine. It all happens behind the scene and you only see the result – how it happens remains a suspense to all but a few. Hence the entire operation is very bewildering, confusing and mystifying.

In case of computers, as the ‘machine’ (software) is invisible but only the ‘fuel’ (computer) is visible, we think that the computer is the real “machine”.

7.2 SOFTWARE MACHINE AUTOMATES MENTAL PROCESS WHICH IS NOT UNIFORM

We saw that the machines serve your physical needs – they reduce your physical strain. Machines automate physical process, whereas computers automate the mental process.

A car does something which your legs would be doing otherwise. A lathe does the work of your hands. The computer attempts to automate the function of man’s brain.

While physical process is the same for all human beings, their mental processes vary from man to man. While physically we all do things in the same way, mentally we work in different ways. For instance, a car has the same basic human need to satisfy, that of moving from one place to another. In the absence of the car or any other transport machine, everyone would be doing it the same way – by walking across. The computer is used for various diverse tasks, and for each task, there are umpteen different ways that different people would do it manually. So whereas the same machine can serve all humans equally effectively, the software machine has problems satisfying all. To automate the mental processes, you need a machine which is flexible to accommodate different mental styles and mental make-up.

Let me take a crude example. Imagine that different people had different body structures and different ways to move – some walked, some hopped, some walked on hands and some even flew. Imagine what would be the plight of the car manufacturer. He would have to provide flexibility in the product to provide for the different styles and body structures of individuals. People would have to tailor the car to their requirements or amend their ways – maybe change sitting positions, use body parts in a different way – to make the maximum use of the car. Cars would have to be tailor-made and no standardisation would be possible. In spite of that people who could fly naturally would say that the car was of no use – it does not help them with all their tasks.

Now because there is a standard way there is no problem. Not so for the computer. The mental functions it automates are not performed in the same way by all.

Though standardisation of procedures is now becoming a reality, one of the major hurdles to computerisation is the difference in everyone’s ways of working.

7.3 SOFTWARE MACHINE IS EASILY ALTERABLE: FLEXIBILITY

We saw that the computer is used for various diverse tasks, and for each task, there are several different ways one could do it manually. Therefore, to satisfy the varying requirements, the fundamental prerequisite of the software machine is that it should be flexible. The software machine needs to be very easily modifiable to satisfy varying human mental processes.

The software machine indeed gives you the flexibility and modifiability to enable you to change its specifications so as to tailor to a particular requirement. Not only can you perform different functions using different software in the same computer, even within the same software, you can easily change the functioning by merely altering the code. Its behaviour can be easily changed by changing the set of instructions in an application program. This is very unlike the machine-age machines where the specifications depend on hard physical objects like plugs, carburettor, steel pipes, etc. which cannot be altered or modified so easily.

But this flexibility comes at a heavy cost. A change in one character, word or full-stop can completely change the behaviour or output of a program.

Since it is so easy to change its performance, unwanted changes could happen inadvertently. Also due to the flexibility, yet another outcome is that there can be too many variations or versions of software to do the same task. The cost we pay is that there are no standard methods and procedures and no standard software.

Flexibility and Modifiability, which is the biggest strength of the software is also the greatest weakness.

8. FLEXIBILITY OF SOFTWARE ‘MACHINE’ – THE DOUBLE EDGED SWORD

8.1 MERITS OF FLEXIBILITY

Flexibility and Modifiability of software, which is its biggest strength is actually a double aged sword. It is also its greatest weakness.

We saw that the main hurdles to the acceptance of computers were the three basic misconceptions in our outlook towards computers. We also saw how the software machine is different from the other machines. Moreover, we saw that to automate the mental process we need a flexible machine like the software.

As computer has to satisfy varying mental processes, it cannot be as rigid as the machines. The prerequisite is that it should be flexible, versatile and modifiable. To satisfy varying needs and mental styles, man has been able to make an equally flexible device which is the software machine.

Its flexibility and easy modifiability is the greatest merit of the software machine.

However, this flexibility is also turns out to be its greatest demerit. Flexibility of the software machine has given birth to some major problems and complexities (discussed in next section) which are characteristics of the “software machine” only and are unheard of in case of other industrial age machines. We get frustrated with computers because we have never seen such problems in other machines of industrial era.

Let us discuss each of these problems.

8.2 DEMERITS OF FLEXIBILITY – SERIOUS LIMITATIONS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY

8.2.1 A Working Program can Misfire with a Small Change

The flexibility or modifiability of the software machine has actually become a problem.

A machine cannot be changed so easily as the specifications depend on hard physical objects like plugs, carburettor, steel pipes, etc. which cannot be altered or modified so easily. So we are used to seeing a machine perform the same task consistently for ages. Machine may stop working, but when it works, it is consistent. But in software machine, it can be changed so easily by changing just one character in the program. So it can suddenly start misbehaving. A program which is working perfectly today may stop working or start giving undesired results tomorrow with a small change in the program. So whereas a machine is consistent in its behaviour, software is not.

In the versatility and flexibility of the software machine, it has lost consistency as it can be changed easily.

Although this may sound very weird, let us imagine similar thing happening in a car. Imagine a car made of components whose shape can be easily changed. The characteristics and the behaviour of the cars would easily change with the change in shape of its components. You may suddenly find your car going left when you turned your steering right or hitting somewhere when you did nothing wrong. Each day you will see your car behaving differently, probably because someone changed the shape of one component without your knowledge. You will be frustrated, particularly having seen your friend’s car working perfectly. Sounds ridiculous! But that is exactly what is possible in the software machine. A small change in the program can easily disturb a program which was working to your satisfaction. This is more common in companies having their own developed software than those who use packaged software.

So when man sees other person’s computer performing but not his, he gets frustrated. Also the behaviour of the software keeps changing (because there are so many parameters and each one alterable so easily). So when he finds a computerised system behaving differently, he gets frustrated. He only sees it as the computer machine performing, what he does not see beyond that is that it is a different software machine sitting inside.

This leads not only to frustration but also mistrust.

The following is a very common situation in most offices: All is working fine and the computerised system is running fine. Suddenly on a fine morning, there is a big goof up by the computerised system. Everyone starts cursing the computer department. Such a situation may arise on two accounts. There was a minor change in requirements and the amendments carried out to improve the system created a bug in the system leading to the mishap. Another possible reason for this situation could be that the software team thought of an enhanced version, but the new version had a bug.

8.2.2 Lack of Discipline

Because the software is so easily alterable, the user of this tool needs to exercise strict discipline not to alter it unscrupulously. In our analogy of the modifiable car, a person who is more disciplined in his use of the car and does not make frequent arbitrary changes will find his car serving him well. A disciplined user of such a car will not only minimize changes on the fly, but will also test the car well every time he makes a change to ensure that the change has been done correctly, and that the car is behaving as desired. Another person not doing so will wonder what was wrong with his car and curse his car, when actually the fault did not lie with the car but with him, with his habit of frequent modifications.

8.2.3 Innumerable machines, No Standardisation

One outcome of flexibility and modifiability is that there are innumerable variations of the same software machine. There must be so many different types of software to keep a company’s accounts. Whereas in case of machines, there are a few brands, e.g. brands of cars, etc. There is standardisation. As there are fewer variations, we know their behaviour better.

In case of other machines (say a car), all machines are mainly alike, at most there are a few standard brands (or variations). But each of them performs exactly as per its specifications.

In case of the software machine, there are thousands, almost millions of machines. In Financial Accounting software itself there must be thousands of variations worldwide. Each Financial Accounting software package made on this earth is a different machine.

8.2.4 Lack of Trained Personnel (“mechanics”)

As there are few variations in the car, there are more trained people who are trained as car mechanics. The mechanics have full knowledge of the machine. Now car mechanics have only a few brands to learn. In our analogy of a modifiable car, you would not have trained mechanics to look into any car. There would be no car experts. Every mechanic would first have to learn the car insides before he would diagnose because he would be only having the general principles and no knowledge of the specific car he is repairing.

In case of software machines, there are no standard machines and hence less trained personnel on these machines. The software personnel have the basic skill but if they were to diagnose a program, they have to first understand it and then diagnose it. In case of software machine, there is only one fully trained person, the person who developed the machine (software). He too tends to forget the details over passage of time unless he has fully documented it. To make matters worse, there are various programming languages using which software is developed and not all software developers know all languages.

Solution to the problem appears to be the standardisation of procedures. When all offices will have the same way of keeping accounts, same formats, same rules, there will be standard few software packages, tested and proven. Betters skills would be available because people would have to learn the same package.

8.2.5 Poor Man-Machine Interface

This is the most critical problem caused by easy modifiability and lack of standard software. We shall therefore discuss it at length in the next chapter.

9. POOR MAN-MACHINE INTERFACE (MMI)

I am not using man machine interface in the usual sense that HMI (Human machine interface) is used. My definition is a bit different. I refer to Man-Machine interface to mean not the input output devices but the practices, habits, processes and methods which we humans need to adopt in order to use the technology effectively.

For example, to ensure proper usage of computers, you need to ensure that the data that you feed or input to the system is error free, accurate and in the specific format desired by the computer. You cannot expect correct output if your input is not right. This principle is also called Garbage in, garbage out. It is a way that defines the way you interact with computers/software. So when we refer to “Man-Machine Interface”, we refer to the rules and practices that you need to follow in order to effectively interact with and benefit from the computers.

The following example of a machine age machine (aircraft) and how we need to interface with it to use it will make it more clear.

9.1 UNDERSTANDING MMI WITH AN ANALOGY OF AIRCRAFT

I was once discussing this issue with a friend. I said that we fail to use computers effectively because we are quite ignorant about computers. We do not have enough computer awareness. His immediately response was, “Why do I need to know about computers in order to use it? You are asking for too much from the users. When I travel by aeroplane, I do not know how it works. I do not know its internals or its aerodynamic principles but I can still make full use of the aeroplane to the best of my advantage. I may not know how my car works. But that does not stop me from getting the most out of my car. Then why do I need to know about computers to effectively use it? Why is the computer so demanding?”

His argument sounds very logical and justified on the face of it. But there is a flaw.

The argument that we do not know anything about aeroplane or motorcar is not really true. We know far more about them than we know about computers. The funny thing is that we are not even aware of what we know about aeroplanes and cars and what we do not know about computers.

We may not know anything about the internals of a car or an aeroplane, but we certainly are very clear of what is expected of us to use them effectively. We at least know that the aeroplane cannot be used unless there is a long airstrip and a big open space to take off. We know that however far the aerodrome is, we have to take a taxi and go to the airport to avail of the services of the aircraft.

We know that the aircraft benefits us provided we take the pains to get up early, labour our way to the remote airport, go through the inconvenience of security checks, etc. We know what our responsibility is, we know that the aircraft is not going to pick us up from our residence, that we have to slog our way to the far off airport, we have to check in, etc.

We know that a car can pick us up from our house and take us to the airport, but it cannot take us from Bombay to Delhi in two hours. We know that a car cannot be used effectively unless we build good roads.

We have learnt to benefit from their merits and live with their shortcomings. We are not aware of the pains we take in order to take advantage.

We are so used to the machines now that we immediately know that if we have to go to a distant city, we must use a plane; if we want to go shopping in town, we must take the car. If one doesn’t own a car, he should look for the right bus route, should walk up to the bus stop, should stand at the right bus stop and wait till the bus comes however great be his urgency. Or he should walk up till the taxi stand if he can afford it. If we have to deliver a message to a friend a few blocks away, we would rather walk up to the friend than use the car. We are now so used to these machines that we know immediately when to use which machine. We take these decisions subconsciously in split seconds.

Would you call that knowing a lot about cars and aircrafts? Yes. Because in case of computers we do not even have this basic awareness.

In case of computers we do not even know our responsibility. If we were to draw an analogy with computers, what we do is expect the aircraft to reach us to our office a few kilometres away, or sometimes want the scooter to reach us to far away towns. What is worse, we are not ready to even go to the airport and expect the aeroplane to come to our house and pick us up. If it doesn’t, we curse the “aircraft”. This leads to frustration. We don’t realise that the “aircraft” is not designed for such services. If we expect the service of a car from an aeroplane, then something is wrong with our expectation. This exactly is the scenario with computers.

9.2 WHY IT IS DIFFICULT TO DESIGN MMI?

Let us look at another aspect of Man-machine interface. While it is easier to design MMI for the industrial machine, it is not so easy in case of the “information-age machine”. The human interface with machines (as defined by us in the previous section) has not changed much over the years for industrial machines. Moreover, machines have changed very little over the years – at least what they expect of human beings has changed marginally. As a result, man has learnt (although the hard way) what are his responsibilities and what is expected of him while using a machine, as we saw in case of an aircraft. He knows under which situation it is useful and under which it is not. He knows what to expect from the machine and what he needs to do to get the best out of a machine. Man has been able to, over time and slowly, get familiar and adapt to the change that was expected of him. Unlike the computer, the same machine of the industrial age always performs the same task. As a result, we know the behaviour of the machine very well. This is schematically illustrated in Fig 1. The machine in the diagram has not changed, man has slowly changed his behaviour and lifestyle over the years to develop a compatible or matching interface.

Fig 1 is an illustrative diagram to show how man has changed his lifestyle, thinking, behaviour, expectations and attitude to suit the machine. The figure shows two parts which have to fit together. In fig 1a, because of the odd shape of the two parts, they are unable to fit together. The part on the left represents the machine of machine era and part on the right represents man. In the three figures 1a to 1c, you will notice that the part on the left remains almost the same in shape. The part on the right in each figure has slowly changed to match the part on the left so that in fig 1c, the two parts match together. Whereas machine remained the same over the years, man has changed slowly to coexist with the machine. At least the user interface of the machine has changed very little over the years, whereas man has changed his style to fill the gaps and developed a compatible interface with the machine.

In fact man has got so used to the machine that he does not even realise how he has adapted to it, how he has changed his habits and lifestyle to take advantage of the machine, as we saw in the previous example of our interface with the aircraft.

In case of computers, there is no standard machine and the user interface has also changed over the years (from centralised batch processing to distributed end user computing to web based computing). As a result man has not so far been able to develop a suitable interface (Fig. 2).

In figure 2, the part on the left in the three figures (which represents the machine of the information age (computer)) keeps changing constantly and hence the two parts do not match.

In case of computers, because of modifiability of software, the same software behaves differently from time to time. So man can’t easily get used to or familiar with its behaviour. He finds it difficult to get used to the software machine because there is no standard machine. As there is no standard machine, there can be no standard protocol. Each one has to design his own interface the hard way and therefore takes more time to utilize his machine.

As there is no standard ‘software machine’, there is no standard man machine interface. Man has not got familiar or has not adapted to this machine.

9.3 REAL-LIFE EXAMPLE OF POOR MMI

We saw the MMI in case of the industrial machine in our example of the aircraft above. Let us look at what we mean by MMI in case of information age “machine” with a real example of a business process automation scenario in offices. In case of computers, we have got a new tool but we have not changed our old methods. I will take a real life example to illustrate this. The case is of a very simple application like payroll, which most companies used to start their computerisation with.

One business unit of a company I once worked with was in oil exploration business. It had rig sites at remote locations where only mode of communication was wireless and radio telex.

The accounts clerk prepared the salary manually. He used to get data related to attendance and other employee details from sites directly on wireless. Most often, the attendance came piecemeal one by one from sites. Sometimes, having sent the data, the sites would send in amendments quite late. Sometimes they never sent the data or the data sent was incomplete or unclear, and the accounts clerk used to call up the sites on wireless to get data or clarifications.

In the manual system, this did not create major problems as, in the worst case, salaries of a few employees were held up due to non-receipt of data, or lack of clarity. Most of employees got their salaries on time.

When I joined them, the system had just been computerised. Now accounts clerk gave the data to the computer operator (who incidentally was in IT department. Distributed end user computing was the buzzword then, so the computer had been shifted to the user department, but so had been the computer operator! ). In the new set up, the same old practices continued: data used to come piecemeal, there were last moment corrections by sites, some data was not available (particularly for the new recruits) for which the accounts clerk called up the sites on wireless. Salary processing essentially being a batch process, used to be run and re-run several times due to last minute changes. In a manual system it was easy to correct individual cases where corrections came in, whereas in the computerised system, all salaries had to be processed together. So even if one employee’s data was not available, everybody’s salary was stuck. Even if one employee’s particulars were changed, the salary had to be reprocessed. As a result, all employees started getting salaries late. There was a big hue and cry. There were complaints from sites that they were not getting their salaries on time. Very senior people spent time meeting and trying to analyse the cause for the delays. All that only resulted in the cut-off date for attendance getting advanced to 20th of the month! Still complaints from sites did not stop.

Nobody knew who was to blame – the sites, the accounts department or IT department. Naturally as most often happens, in such a situation, the blame fell on IT and their computerised system. Everything was fine before the computerised system, so naturally the system was the culprit.

I could easily see that this was a case of old methods being used with new tools. I will cut a long story short and describe here how the methods, procedures, responsibilities and discipline were changed to adapt to the new system. All I did was redesigned manual processes and fixed responsibilities/ target dates for different tasks.

1. Personnel department was made responsible for providing and ensuring the accuracy of all attendance data and employee additions/changes. They would give a signed paper.

2. Personnel department was instructed to give the monthly data by a cut-off date. It was made clear to them and all site employees that any changes in data coming after the cut-off date will be incorporated in the next month.

3. Accounts department was made responsible for providing and ensuring the accuracy of all financial data like loans and advances/recoveries.

4. As a part of the IT department, I took full responsibility of the accuracy of computer programs – that given the correct inputs, the programs would process the payroll correctly.

Immediate effect was that salary preparation which was earlier taking more than 10 days was now taking 3 days, with scope for further improvement. No longer did the accounts clerk have to make last minute calls on the wireless, no longer did sites insist on last minute changes.

This is a simple example where the system was made successful not by changing the system, but by changing the Man-Machine Interface (MMI). I introduced a discipline of work which had to be strictly followed by the assignees of the work.

Most ERPs fail not because of technical issues, not because the product is unsuitable but because an appropriate MMI is not put in place. “Steering a Failed Peoplesoft ERP Implementation back on Track” [Ref.7] is another real life story of why an ERP failed and how it was revived by simply designing and introducing a disciplined MMI.

9.4 NEED TO REDESIGN MMI FOR INFORMATION AGE

Man refuses to change his methods and practices to effectively use the computer. He has not been able to evolve the right protocol to use a computer. He does not know what his obligations are.

It is possible to design software and write a book on how to use the software. But no software developer designs the manual interface or writes about it. It is not possible because it differs from organisation to organisation. So each organisation has to design its own manual interface and reinvent the wheel.

It is not uncommon to see computerised systems made which look excellent on the screen, perform all functions but fail miserably on implementation. Most often the reason is that the manual system interfacing with the computerised system was not designed or suitably amended. Same old methods were used on the computerised system, and the same discipline continued as was there in manual system.

In contrast, look at the MMI we have designed for the industrial machines. We have taken pains to use technology of the industrial age. We built roads to use cars, air-strip and airports for aircrafts, long rail lines for railways, etc. We built tall transmission towers and insulated wiring to use electricity. Electricity can be very useful, but at the same time it can also kill. When this technology was introduced I am sure there must have been a great deal of resistance to use it. But now we do not complain. We make the safety provisions and use it. There are mishaps when lives are lost. We no more blame the technology for such mishaps. But for software implementation we do nothing. We do not want to do anything nor do we want to change our ways to use the technology of information age. We do not know our responsibility. We only blame the technology if it does not yield results.

Designing MMI for industrial machines is much simpler and obvious because everything is physically visible, the moving parts in a machine are visible. The “machine” of the information age is not visible and has no moving parts, hence the confusion.

10. DEMANDS OF THE NEW SOFTWARE PARADIGM

In the Payroll example which we discussed in the previous section, it will be interesting to analyse what the users of Information Technology gave in order to get the benefits which they got from successful computerisation. What they gave was their willingness to change their expectations and their thinking. They were ready to postpone the effect of last minute changes to next month. They changed their behaviour and style of working. They were willing to own responsibility and be accountable. They changed their attitude to work and brought in more discipline – no longer was there a casual way of giving data. They realised that giving accurate and timely data was most important.

Apart from these, this technology demands something more from the user for effective use. Apart from changes in behaviour, attitudes, expectations, thinking, etc., there are certain responsibilities to be shouldered when the computerised application software is developed, customized and implemented.

In a computerised system, you would need to think in advance what you want, give details specifications so that there are minimum changes after programming or customisation. In a manual operation, you would start and keep instructing your clerks to change methods wherever you notice a flaw. They themselves are also capable of making improvements in their own methods.

As testing is difficult and modification is easy, one small change in the program renders the product untested and needs re-testing because it is not very easy to see what will be the effect of the change on the rest of the program. By avoiding changes after programming you would avoid risk of malfunctioning caused by tampering a tested program.

You would need to give a detailed set of instructions, called program, absolutely error free in all respects. The instructions should have correct syntax and should have the right order so as to give the desired output until the last dot.

Once the system is in use, you need to give the data together and timely, as we saw in our example of payroll system. You need to change the working environment and the style. You need to reallocate duties and fix responsibilities. Whereas initially the emphasis was on the accuracy of posting, calculating, now the emphasis has to be on the accuracy of coding, timeliness of input data and daily checking the accuracy based on some control checks. Whereas manually you kept on posting and left the checking work to the end of the year, here you need to check the accuracy daily to ensure no work at year-end.

Computers demand that you change your working style, your thinking. In short, you need to change your ‘Industrial culture’ to ‘Information culture’. Is this asking for too much? Common perception is that computer technology asks for too much from its users. But do we realise that even other technology which we have put to effective use asks for too much and we have given it – for instance, airstrips for aircraft, roads for cars, rail lines for railway, tall transmission towers and fail-safe insulation for electricity, etc. It is only when we do so much that this technology helps us, not otherwise.

11. CONCLUSION

The problem of acceptance of computers is evolutionary. Man will evolve out of it. The evolution can be faster, the faster we correct our outlook.

We need to look at computers in the right perspective. We have to give up old methods and approach of dealing with machines and adopt new ones. We must recognize computer as an entity different from a machine, and devise altogether new and fresh methods of dealing with its introduction in our lives. In other words we have to evolve an entirely new approach towards computers, probably by first unlearning what we learnt in the industrial age.

Our encounters with computers will be far less frustrating if we appreciate the following:

Software is the machine and not the computer.

Do not expect the same result as a normal machine. Keep in mind that the software is not the same kind of machine that we know of and are so familiar with. Do not expect it to be similar to other machines. Expectation leads to frustration.

Acknowledge that computer and software are far inferior to humans, whereas the machines outperform the humans in the physical activity. Once we are clear of this fact, we will stop expecting the moon.

Acknowledge that man has changed his life style to take maximum advantage of the machines. He has got adjusted or adopted. Ask yourself what you need to do to make the maximum of the Computer technology.

Most important of all, acknowledge that humanity and the world is in a state of flux. It is in the process of change and a change is always unsettling. Soon standards will emerge or evolve and water will settle. The world is going through the turmoil of change from Industrial age to Information age. The Industrial revolution had its own upheavals, doubts, and problems. We are now going through the same phase of scepticism, criticism, and doubts with respect to the Information Age. Soon we will know what to give in order to get the most of computers. Soon we will stop complaining about giving what we have to give, as the benefits of what you get will be obvious – as clear as the benefits of electricity.

REFERENCES:

1. Prem Kamble, “What Top Executives Need To Know About Computers” https://premkamble.com/probfull/
2. Prem Kamble, “Managers’ Guide to Evolve from Machine Age to Information Age” https://premkamble.com/it2/
3. Prem Kamble, “Behavioral IT^®: Managers Don’t Need IT Skills, They Need ‘Behavioral IT’ Skills” – https://premkamble.com/behavit
4. Prem Kamble, Seminar/Training on Behavioral IT – https://premkamble.com/seminarbehavit
5. Prem Kamble, CEO as a Leader of Technology Driven Change https://premkamble.com/ceoleadschange/
6. Prem Kamble, HR! Discover Your New Role of the IT Era, https://premkamble.com/hrnewrole/
7. Prem Kamble, “Steering a Failed PeopleSoft ERP Implementation back on Track”: A real life story of why an ERP failed and how it was revived by simply designing and introducing a disciplined MMI, https://premkamble.com/erprestore.
8. Prem Kamble, “Behavioral IT^® – A Multi-disciplinary Approach to Address the IT Woes of Businesses & Top Professionals in an IT-Driven World”, https://premkamble.com/behavit2
9. 4 Valuable Lessons From Major ERP Fails (May 4th, 2018) – https://www.mbtmag.com/erp/article/13228432/4-valuable-lessons-from-major-erp-fails

Also See:

Behavioral IT^® Model of Successful IT Implementations https://premkamble.com/behavit
Unique Behavioral IT Seminar for Top Managers   https://premkamble.com/seminarbehavit
More Seminars for CEOs, HoDs and Senior Managers by Prem Kamble   https://premkamble.com/seminarlist.htm
Behavioral IT Course for MBA Students – The first of its Kind in the World!   https://premkamble.com/behavitcourse.htm
Seminars for CIOs and IT Managers   https://premkamble.com/seminarlist.htm
Articles and Real Life Case Stories by Prem Kamble  https://premkamble.com/blog

Summary
I was given ready content from a US university and asked to conduct Employability Training to Engg. College students. As an industry professional, I found the content too theoretical and not effective. I created my own content and found an effective & fun way of improving employability. Instead of cosmetic improvements in presentation style, personality development, language skills,etc., I found ways to make them internally and technically stronger, so that they succeed not only in their first interview after college, but through their entire career.

Introduction

This article is about improving employability skills among youth, particularly among engineering students. It focusses on the skills required by industry, particularly the IT industry, and ways and means to develop those required skills among the students to make them more employable. It tries to bridge the gap between industry and academic institutions. This article will benefit students from any stream who wish to make a career in IT. With the IT boom, quite a few students from all engineering streams chose a career in IT. However, the techniques are also relevant to all technical streams of engineering.

Most Employability Trainings for college students focus on cosmetic improvements in presentation style, personality development, language skills, etc.

As a Senior IT professional who has over 30 years of industry experience, mostly as CIO, the author feels that these cosmetic attributes are less significant for candidates from technical streams like engineering, particularly for IT function. What is required and appeals the most to the interviewer is not his personality, not even his/her technical knowledge. Having worked with and trained several youngsters on the job, the author can vouch that the industry needs different skills.

This article presents a much better, interesting and effective way to make IT and other engineering students, more employable. The method described here not only makes them more employable for their first employment after college, but it also helps them to remain employable, skilled and relevant throughout their career.

This article tries to identify those skills and discuss why they are important. More significantly, the article not only presents a strategy to develop those skills in students by catching them young but also shows how the strategy was practically implemented to ensure that the students benefitted from the strategy.

What are the Required Skills and Why?

An Understanding of the IT Industry & the Skill Supply Scenario

To build the right employability skills of the students, we need to identify what are the most critical skills that the industry needs and understand why they are important. These requirements are driven by some typical characteristics of IT technology and the IT industry as follows:

• Technology, particularly IT, is continuously evolving, improving, innovating and creating redundancy.
• The field is so vast and changing, that you can never master everything. You need experts in focused areas, calling for a team effort.
• What one learns in college becomes redundant soon enough. An IT professional needs to continuously update and upgrade skills.

Are the academic institutes doing enough to meet the industry demand? Firstly, there is a gap between the skills required and what colleges teach. In India, there is very little collaboration between academics and industry. Secondly, even if they were to teach the content relevant today, the technology itself changes so fast that it becomes redundant. So the students need to be equipped with skills to cope with the ever-changing industry requirement.

Do you need Extra Intelligent People?

I was once consulting for a software company where the CEO was keen to tone up his recruitment process to be able to recruit the best candidates for software development. According to him, the best candidates were those with extremely sharp brains, who could crack puzzles instantly, who believed that they are intelligent and the best. He asked me if there is a test to identify such people.

I asked him if you truly need extra intelligent guys for the IT industry. I wouldn’t even care to test such skills.

The Required Skills

If not the sharpest and most intelligent brains, what kind of people and what skills does the industry need?

More than testing the knowledge and skills of the people I interview, I seek for the right attitude – an attitude of learning, problem-solving, exploring, experimenting and an urge to learn by trial-and-error. In the field of information technology, there is so much to learn that you can never know all. You may need to dig, explore, experiment, read and re-read manuals to find a solution. So it is not the completeness of knowledge that is required, but the analytical ability, inquisitiveness, eagerness and ability to explore and learn.

When I interview a candidate, I give a pen and paper and ask him/her to describe in details any project that s/he has done and is comfortable with, starting from the objective, problem definition, the solution and the actual logic of the solution. The way s/he explains and argues out helps me check his/her involvement in and mastery over the work s/he has done, and his/her ability to communicate and argue with clarity. Command over language is less important for me than the ability to discuss alternatives, openness to suggestions and to explore alternatives. A person who is ready to research is a person who can look at alternative solutions and is not “fixed” to only one solution.

Even among those already working with me, I don’t expect people to ‘know’, but be willing to explore. During problem-solving, when I ask youngsters if there is a technology solution, there are some who give an instant response in ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and some who say that they need time to explore.

Those who give instant reply often do so thinking that they will cut a sorry figure if they say, “I don’t know”. They fear that it may give an impression of their lack of knowledge.

I feel happier if s/he says, “I don’t know, I need to go back and research before giving a reply”. And s/he may have to look up manuals, user groups, web articles, etc.

HUMILITY to say “I don’t know, I need to look up and explore” is another important quality required in software professionals. In IT, being able to dig, research and find a solution is more important than knowing the solution. The knowledge out there is so vast that you need to be a “seeker” and not a “know-all’. That is why the sharp people who think that they are the best can be serious failures. They may not have the humility to think that they may not know, and the vast field of IT can completely floor their ego.

S/he who gives the right solutions may not always be the one who knows the best solution, but the one who has the attitude to find the right solution.

It is possible to develop these skills in extremely ordinary people. I have been able to get extraordinary results from ordinary people [Ref4:Extraordinary Results…].

Strategy to Cultivate the Required Skills?

Turmoil of Information Revolution?

It may not be apparent, but we are right now going through the turmoil of the Information Revolution, just as we went through the turmoil of the industrial revolution. In this post I have not only tried to bring you face to face with this turmoil, but also explored ways to avoid the turmoil.

Almost hundred years of Industrial Revolution (between years 1740 to 1840 approx) dramatically changed the social structure of the world. Industrial revolution resulted in overcrowding of the cities and breakage of the old form of family. Though some were optimistic about the new means of production and increased wealth, there were serious concerns that the social and environmental effects of industrialization might prove disastrous. The century was characterized by hot debates, skepticism, protests and violence due to poverty, disease, environmental issues and moral issues arising out of the change. This is called the Turmoil of the Industrial Revolution. Many of us, particularly among the younger generation are not even aware of the 100 years of turmoil and upheaval that the world went through.

The people who went through the turmoil were unaware that they were going through the turmoil. It is only when the dust settled that the world realized what had happened. Similarly, today we are unaware of the turmoil of the information revolution. On the contrary, there is an overall euphoria about IT, a lot of excitement and expectation from IT. But this euphoria is a delusion or a mirage. Take a closer look in corporates trying to introduce technology, you will find that the picture is not so rosy. There is stress, upheavals, resistance and organizational politics because of IT.

As per research, there are 70-80% failures in ERP implementations, in spite of the fact that the best proven ERP products are being implemented by the best world renowned consultants. I believe IT itself is disruptive in a sense – implementing even the simplest software solution disrupts or unsettles people and people resist change. And I can say this having worked on IT in businesses for over 30 years in global markets, including so called advanced countries. I think it is a problem of mindset change, which takes generations.

Where is the Turmoil?

Not all tend to believe when I talk of a turmoil. I was once talking to a class of students at a leading Management Institute and one young student said “Where is the resistance and turmoil that you are talking of? We see technologies getting adopted so easily. The example he gave was of adoption of facebook, twitter (and social media in general) by untrained common people. So, he said, where is the problem of lack of training and where is the resistance to change that I was talking of?

I think this is the root cause of the myth or delusion – the fact that IT appears to be so easily accepted by the younger generations gives us a false impression that everything is hunky dory in IT. The fact that youngsters adapt so easily to the technology gadgets, powerpoint, facebook, etc., they are likely to fall into a trap of believing that they are IT savvy. The reality in the corporate world is different. Being extremely proficient with using latest smart phones and laptops for PowerPoint presentations or MS Word is certainly not what it takes to be an IT savvy manager. There is a lot more for a manager to know – not only about technology, but also knowing how to pull the right strings to successfully manage technology within his or her department. The manager needs to successfully manage the people and their behaviour under IT-Driven Change.

Is IT Euphoria a Myth?

Is IT Euphoria a myth? If it is, what is the cause of the myth?

We are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to IT adoption in businesses and IT adoption with respect to social media. The scenario is different when it comes to implementing business process automation involving several people and departments. Whenever multiple teams are involved, there is need for management of change. And most IT projects in business which involve business process automation involve multiple teams with conflicting objectives.

Facebook implementation and ERP implementations in companies are two very different things.

Difference Between Adoption of Social Media and IT Adoption in Businesses

Let us look at the difference between the issues of IT adoption in social media and businesses and why IT adoption is such a big issues in businesses.

1. Facebook users are voluntary. There is no compulsion. So people join at their own will, only people who are interested join and they too participate as and when they want, not compulsorily on a regular basis. In companies, those who have to use it have no choice not to use it and they have to use it compulsorily for all transactions. They have to use it for transacting business. Facebook will be deemed to be successful even if 1% of the possible users use it, whereas an ERP in a company cannot succeed unless 100% of its expected users use it. If even one invoice, which is supposed to be raised using the ERP is raised manually or outside the ERP system, the ERP system is rendered inaccurate and unreliable which can lead to complete failure.
2. Use of Facebook does not involve a process and is not dependent on others. An individual does an atomic activity like posting a comment or uploading a photo, etc. which is an independent activity not dependent on any one else’s activities. Whereas in ERP, it is a team activity. Other people are affected by your accuracy and timeliness of usage. For instance if a new employee record is not added accurately and timely in an ERP, the employee may not be able to mark the attendance, the transport department may not be able to provide transport to the employee and so on. The business processes are long and distributed over several people. When there are interdependent teams involved in implementation, there are management problems and challenges.
3. There is more need of managing change, regulating and guiding. There are more managerial and organizational issues in ERP implementation.
4. ERPs are not so user friendly systems like web based applications meant for masses. ERPs were not designed to be so user friendly as they were not designed for masses.
5. There is no fear of loss of job, power in case of facebook. In businesses, the sword of loss of job or loss of control always hangs on their necks, rightly or wrongly. This results in organizational politics, inherent resistance and stress.
6. Facebook does not need master data. ERP needs a huge, accurate master data to be first created which is an extra burden and extremely painful activity. Often errors in data misleads people into believing that the system is misbehaving and the blame game starts.

In a nutshell, when people are involved in a collaborative, interdependent process, there is bound to be disruption, resistance and stress. It is not so easy as using facebook or twitter.

How to Avoid the Turmoil? Introducing Behavioral IT^® !

Managers need to equip themselves to overcome this turmoil of the Information Revolution. There is a major confusion as to what managers should know or learn about technology. I believe that managers need not know IT, they need to know Behavioral IT^®. Behavioural IT is a new skill which I have defined which encompasses just that what Managers need to know to manage IT-Driven Change and to succeed in using IT without having to know the technicalities of IT. Google on “Behavioral IT” to know more about Behavioral IT skill, which can help managers and their companies to reduce the turmoil of Information revolution.

(Background:  The leader of a political party and Prime ministerial candidate Mr Narendra Modi had to declare in his nomination papers, forced by a new rule, that he was married after hiding his marital status for decades.)

I have full sympathies for both Modi and his wife. I can understand the pain that they may have gone through. I understand that it may not have been easy for both of them particularly the lady who braved it all alone but still had all the good will for him. I salute the lady.

As a strong opponent of non-secular parties and non secular thoughts, I could have used the news to malign the person hoping to be the PM. But I do not want to interfere in his personal life. I empathise with them, I can feel the pain and pray that happier days may return to both of them as they reunite. This is a very sacred and beautiful relation and I feel sad when anybody is devoid of its bliss. I feel sad when I even hear news of any separation – I read the separation of Hrithik Roshan with sadness thinking how painful their separation would be after so many years of togetherness and love, particularly as they were childhood friends.

Though I am strongly opposed to a non secular PM and party coming to power, I will not say what most of the opponents of Modi are saying with personal attack on him – “How can a person who has been dishonest to his wife be a good PM?” I give him the benefit of doubt as he may have had his own compulsions and child marriages after all have their own complications. I will not like to make any personal attacks on him for not being honest with the people of India. But with heartfelt apologies to him, I cannot be silent also on this issue for another reason.

I have no questions for him, but I have very serious questions to his party and his followers (which may indirectly have bearings on him if they have inherited his style).

I want to now ask his followers what it would feel like if the people and the other parties start a hate campaign against him like he and his followers smartly did against AAP. They have been carrying out a systematic hate campaign for the last 5 months saying “Kejriwal swore on his children”, “Bacchon ki kasam khai”, and all their followers have been parroting it till I get sick of hearing it.

Modi’s followers, mainly the religious fanatics who form a large part of his following, are justifying his act by saying that he sacrificed his family for the country. Had it been Modi instead of Kejriwal in this case, they would have said, “He has sacrificed his children’s well being because the country could not afford another election.” They have been systematically brainwashing people on “Bacchon ki kasam khai” whereas by doing so Kejriwal has done no harm to anyone else or the country. If at all there can be any harm (if the superstitious are to be believed), it can be to him and his family. Whereas there are so many criminal and corrupt politicians who harm other people and the country, and we remain mute and coward  observers. They made such a big issue of this where Kejriwal was doing no harm to others. And for the religious fanatics, hate campaign for AAP was a child’s play (as they have masterminded a hate campaign for years for one community with ease). Their expertise shows, as their hate campaign has been effective in brainwashing a lot of gullible Indians. Gullible Indians are parroting the words spread by them like “Bacchon ki kasam”, “Bhagaoda”, “Nautanki”, “Aaptards”, etc. The last one shows that these hate mongers can stoop to any level.

Here is a twit in ToI today: “For all Morons who are tweeting against Namo because of his unsuccessful married life, here you have to choose a politician, not a husband” Late wisdom! What happened when Kejriwal was being accused of swearing on his children? Delhi needed a CM not a father.
Note the language of this tweet. This fan group has been consistently using this type of filthy language. That shows their level!

Now should everyone ask similar questions? “If you can lie to the world, if you can deceive your own family, how can a country be entrusted to you?” etc, etc….

I won’t ask these questions as I don’t want to initiate hate campaigns. But when I see a systematic hate campaign being carried out for not just innocent guys, but guys who need to be hailed for their courage and integrity, it is important to expose the culprits. The hate mongers need to publicly apologise to the grieved party. They have done great damage to them and to the country. It was mainly because of this hate campaign that people got divided and did not stand united against the corruption movement. The country lost another opportunity.

Opposition to the corruption movement from the criminals and the corrupt was expected and I am sure AAP was prepared for it. What caught them on the wrong foot was this unexpected spirited opposition and hate campaign from these religious fanatics. These fanatics and fringe elements were almost dancing with dreams of their favourite leader ruling the country, when they got a sudden jolt from a small fry like AAP. And anything can happen when hate mongers lose their top!

The Background:  

This article, reproduced from my Notes in Facebook (http://bit.ly/pkcorr), was written in October, 2012, immediately after Arvind Kejriwal had made allegations of financial bungling against Salman Khursheed, Union Law Minister. This was when Kejriwal was a common man, before he became the chief minister of a state. He had alleged that Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust, an NGO run by Khurshid and his wife Louise, was involved in financial bungling of over Rs.71 lakhs. References and links to relevant news items are available at the bottom of the article.    

We Indians have been Conditioned to Accept Goondaism

When you hear a story of a common man in India raising his voice against the powerful and corrupt, what is the first thought that comes to your mind? Of course, it is of retaliation by the political heavyweights – not through the judiciary but via goons. Ask yourself, “Why does your mind instinctively think of goons in such situations?” It is because, over the years, we Indians have been conditioned to accept goondaism as a ubiquitous part of Indian politics and our lives.

Most of our films on underworld portray how a whistleblower hero and his family endure torture, loss, and humiliation, often leaving their family destroyed. But in the end, our hero triumphs, and removes all traces of the villains.

What is the moral of these stories? “Good always wins over evil”, right? Not really!

The real message which these films have drilled deep into Indian minds is that challenging these powerful figures will destroy you and your family. While the suffering of the hero and his family depicted in these films looks very realistic, the hero’s eventual victory through super human heroics is highly unrealistic and purely a work of fantasy. So the clever Indian mind gets the underlying message loud and clear – “Do not ever interfere with the goons”. These films have instilled a deep-seated fear of the underworld. They have conditioned Indians to accept goondaism as a part of life and never raise their voices against any wrongdoing.

The fear of goonda elements has been drilled so deeply into the Indian psyche that the fear is always present in the subconscious, subtly influencing our actions without us even realizing it. Our films have nicely conditioned us to firmly believe that we are powerless to act against wrongdoing. We now associate any resistance against corruption with inevitable, life-threatening danger from goons, especially when powerful figures are involved. The real-life incidents involving whistleblowers, such as Satyendra Dubey, IIT-Kanpur engineer, and S Manjunath of IIM Lucknow only help to reinforce this belief.

Goondaism – Direct Outcome of Corruption

Corruption and goondaism are inseparable. Where there is corruption, there can be no justice. Where there is no justice, goons are engaged to provide “justice-at-will”. Corruption and goondaism thus sustain each other in a symbiotic relationship.

Put your hand on your heart, close your eyes and ask yourself – what is the first thought which comes to your mind when you ever consider raising your voice against corrupt officials? You will realize that it is the fear of the goons backing them that holds you back. This deep seated fear has conditioned us to be subservient and servile. So remember that when you fight corruption, you are actually fighting goondaism.

The Need for Collective Action

None of us can confront these forces alone. They have to be fought collectively by the people of India. You may not be passionate about fighting corruption, but you cannot deny that we all suffer because of the Goonda raj. Yet, we remain passive.

There are strong arguments mainly from purists who say that each individual has to change to root out corruption, since each one of us is involved. The argument is correct, but unrealistic.  You cannot fight corruption alone, just as you cannot fight goonda elements alone. You cannot survive by being different in a system which is corrupt. In saner moments, we need to collectively renounce these harmful systems, and together resolve to change. A united front and a people’s movement are essential to drive meaningful change.

We Indians are Conditioned to Live a Life of Fear and Resigned Misery

Without fully realizing it, we live under an enduring subconscious fear, adjusting to a life ruled by corrupt officials and goons. I say it is a Life of Fear as we have repressed our true selves much against our wish, cowed by goons and the domination of powerful bureaucrats and politicians. It is a Life of Misery because we are forced to adapt to a corrupt system we inherently dislike yet passively accept as the norm. In fact we have got addicted to this style where you pay a small bribe to get some favor or to get away with minor offenses. We are unable to imagine a life without these compromises.

Being Penny-wise and Pound-foolish

We are actually being penny wise and pound foolish. We think small bribes save us from minor penalties, but fail to see how much we actually lose and make our lives miserable by accepting corruption as a way of our life. Think of the costs we bear due to corruption. We pay extra for car repairs due to poor roads, and spend more on fuel and cabs due to limited and inferior public transport. We pay high fees for private healthcare because of poorly managed and run-down government hospitals. Think of the money you dole out as donations to schools and colleges because of the poor quality of government education. Think of the miserable life that you lead because of poor infrastructure and essential services.

Arvind Kejriwal & His People’s Movement – Time to Wake up

Arvind Kejriwal’s movement has faced strong political backlash, including open hostility from figures like Salman Khursheed and Renuka Choudhary. (Read ‘Background’ at the beginning of this article). I am sure most of us, with our lurking fear of the goons, have consciously and subconsciously thought that Kejriwal’s life could be in danger.

Some dismiss his actions as publicity-seeking. I think his intention is to awaken us Indians. The critics do not realise that de-conditioning minds is not easy, and the group behind this movement is trying hard to change our mindset, rousing us to recognize and combat the fear ingrained within.

Since the war has to be fought collectively by the people of India, they are frantically trying to awaken the people of India by doing what opponents call drama and publicity stunts. But unfortunately, you need more than drama to arouse the reluctant Indians. We Indians need to be shaken out of our slumber. It is time that we wake up and support them.

Kejriwal’s critics may claim his activism is for self-promotion. I dare anybody if they can risk their own and their family’s life to this extent for cheap publicity.

We all know that corruption is rampant, and his allegations likely reflect a widespread reality. We fully well know that such corrupt practices are common in India. We are not at all surprised.

Do any of us have the courage to face the wrath of powerful figures? We live under the shadow of intimidation; that’s our conditioning. It is time to awaken and fully support the brave souls willing to risk their lives for us. If we still doubt their intentions, we Indians will deserve the corrupt system that we have, we will deserve to live in misery.

Please share this message. Debate it if you disagree. But do not remain silent and let this opportunity pass. The iron is hot, it is now or never. To begin, all I invite you to do is give verbal and moral support to this movement against corruption and a dirty political system. Share this message with as many people as possible. Sharing this message and supporting change can ignite a wider movement. Only with a collective voice can we make change. And now we have powerful platform in social media where we can raise our voice even without stepping out.

We have already lost one opportunity when the masses had risen to Anna’s voice. Let’s not let this one slip by.

===================================

Epilogue  (Added in Feb 2014)

Many of my friends did not believe that we live a life of fear and misery – that we live under the constant fear of goons. But as we said before, this fear lies deep within our subconscious, often unrecognized. You have to dig deep to realize this. It is like the air and oxygen around us which remain unnoticed. Let me explain this with a small story.

The other day I was discussing with a co-resident of the housing complex where I stay. He thought we were living a cosy life far from the clamour and hullabaloo of the city with good amenities for recreation – where was the fear and misery that I have talked about?

I reminded him that the builder who built our residential colony had promised under a legal agreement that he would maintain the complex for 5 years at a given rate. A year after handing over the possession the builder backed out and wanted a higher rate. We pleaded with the builder and then gave up. And we took up the maintenance on ourselves and spent much higher. Why? Because we knew that the builder had political connections with the ruling party and was powerful. We knew he had all the goon power. We’ve internalized this fear so deeply that it’s rarely questioned, yet it controls us. Many will deny this, but you have to dig deep inside your mind to realize the real cause, since this is a deep seated fear. We Indians know it very well. Many of you may have suffered much more under the tyranny of the builders. Why did we not knock the doors of justice when we had a legal agreement? We knew very well that you can’t get justice against political bigwigs.

Secondly, our colony does not receive water supply from the authorities – something which is rightfully ours- and we buy water through tankers by paying extra cash. We are afraid to ask for our rights and are ready to grease the palms of the powerful govt officials. Why? Because we are aware of the goonda elements within the system. Every Indian knows about the connection between Politicians and goons in India. I know you may find all this very queer to read, because we have stopped talking of the obvious, leave alone writing about it.

Are we happy shelling out much more money than what is required? Do we get the facilities which we deserve? Are we not suffering? And why are we quietly suffering all this? Because of fear of the goons. We are not even aware that we are quietly suffering. We have become very tolerant too. This state of affairs has got so much intertwined in our psyche that we do not even realize it. It was an eye opener for my friend to realize that we are indeed living a life of fear and misery. For me too, honestly, it came as a shocking revelation some years back while dealing with a government body. That is the characteristic of any conditioning. We are completely unaware of  our own conditioning – it is like being in a trance.

Quite a few people still argue and refuse to admit that it was the fear of goons which stopped us from demanding our rights. It is because our mind is never ready to accept our own weakness. But like I said, think quietly and dig deep into your mind and you will realize that for years we have been tolerating a lot because of this subconscious fear. We have learnt to get our work done with corrupt officials by talking sweet to them, whereas deep inside, you feel a great repugnance towards them.

The image below nicely illustrates this. Please read the update of June 2015 below. The cartoon describes how we have been silenced and our freedom of speech snatched from us by the fear of goons. The two growling dogs at the sides represent the goons, and you are the dog in the centre who can only meow while wearing a beatific smile!!

That is the Great Indian Sycophancy!

Updated: June 2015

Extract from my article “We Indians need to Think outside our Conditioning“:

(Image Courtesy The Times of India)

“You see that dog in the centre with a faint beatific smile?That is you and me. And the two growling dogs sitting by the side are the goons, who are an omnipresent part of our society and political system. You have grown up being told that there are goons around who can harm you and your family if you speak up, particularly against the powerful. You have grown up seeing these dogs snarling and you have forgotten to bark. You have lost your freedom of speech. You have been conditioned not to talk, and to keep flashing that beatific smile. And you are conditioned to believe that the two growling dogs (representing the goondaism in our society) can never go away.”

They have become so much part of your life that you have stopped seeing them. They are like the air around you. You need to think “outside your conditioning” to even realize the presence of these dogs, leave alone challenge them.

Written by – Prem Kamble, https://premkamble.com

Also Read:

1. We the Impotent People of India
2. The Great Indian Apathy, https://premkamble.com/apathy
3. Indians! Wake up to Quality, https://premkamble.com/qlty
4. We Indians need to Think outside our Conditioning
5. Thums up to the Delhi Dare DAVIDs – An Appeal to All Indians

References and Links to the Oct 2012 Incident (As stated in ‘Background’ Section)

1. Kejriwal questions Khurshid’s ‘proof’: Highlights,  https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kejriwal-questions-khurshids-proof-highlights-501773, 15 Oct 2012
2. Arvind Kejriwal challenges Salman Khurshid in …, The Economic Times, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/arvind-kejriwal-challenges-salman-khurshid-in-farrukhabad-asks-voters-not-to-re-elect-him/articleshow/17054699.cms?from=mdr, 2 Nov 2012