At one point, the discussion was about:

“How exactly will AI impact jobs and society?”

I realised that, despite being able to sketch on a whiteboard how GenAI, RAG, the WINS framework, and Agentic AI all work — and even why CxOs are drawn to these technologies — I couldn’t give a clear, academically grounded answer to that question.

But this week, whilst enjoying the half-term break from day job, I discovered Paul Krugman’s “Hot Dog and Bun” thought experiment.

Krugman’s Hot Dog and Bun Thought Experiment

Imagine an economy that produces only two things: hot dogs and buns. Each hot dog requires exactly one bun. They are perfect complements.

Suppose both sectors employ 100 workers, each producing 100 units a day — 10 000 hot dogs and 10 000 buns. Output is perfectly matched, labour fully employed, and wages equal across both industries.

Now imagine a technological improvement doubles productivity in the hot-dog sector. With the same 100 workers, it can produce 20 000 sausages.

Finish Reading →

Friend: “I can’t find the right people for my team. It’s a niche project—cutting-edge stuff. You’d think engineers would jump at this. But no one’s interested.”

Me: “That’s surprising. Especially in your company. It’s huge. What’s the problem?”

Friend (sighing): “Exactly that. The company. People associate us with routine, not innovation. Even when the project is exciting, the company brand turns them off.”

Me: “Isn’t that fixable? Can’t you directly reach out to candidates and explain the project?”

Friend: “I wish. All hiring is centralised. I’m stuck with standard Job Descriptions. By the time they reach candidates, it’s like Chinese whispers. The uniqueness of the project is lost.”

Me: “Sounds like a brand problem, not a project problem.”

Finish Reading →

One article I keep going back to — and often ask my teams to read — is Paul Graham’s “Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule.” It’s not just a great read; it’s a lens through which I view how to build and work within teams.

Whenever I form a new team for a project, I start by requesting everyone to read this article. It’s more than an ice-breaker — it sparks conversations that define how we work together. Even when I’m not leading the team, I’ve often asked my pair programmer to read it, just so we’re aligned in our daily rhythms.

The essence of the article?

Makers need long, uninterrupted blocks of time to get meaningful work done. Managers work in meetings and context switching. Trying to do both simultaneously compromises both roles.

Finish Reading →

A few weeks ago, my friend from USA reached out to me with a dilemma. He wanted to support a young man’s further education — someone from a small town in South India — but there was a twist. This young person had a Bachelor’s degree in Commerce but was now insistent that his future lay in IT.

My friend was unconvinced. And honestly, I was equally puzzled.

We decided to speak with the young man over a video call to understand what drove this sudden pivot. The call didn’t offer much clarity. All we got was a strong sense of his “passion” for IT — but not much depth on why he felt this way. There was no clear articulation of what aspect of IT excited him, no tangible examples, and no signs of experience or experimentation.

Luckily, a few days later, my friend got the opportunity to meet him in person in Bangalore. When I also happened to be in Bangalore the following week, we compared notes. My friend’s impression hadn’t changed much — he still felt the young man was directionless and was wasting his solid foundation in commerce. He urged him to consider an MBA instead of an MCA (Master’s in Computer Applications).

We were stuck — at a decision point, and the application deadlines for both courses were fast approaching.

That’s when we decided to test the hypothesis.

Finish Reading →

I’ve been coming to the same Starbucks in Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore, since the day it opened about three years ago. While many think of coffee shops as noisy or distracting, this space has been my sanctuary for focused work and original thinking. It’s the closest I can get to a non-home environment that allows deep reflection.

Over time, I’ve seen this store evolve like a finely tuned instrument. Operations run like clockwork now—orders are fast, the atmosphere is clean, and the staff are always warm and efficient. But it was only recently that I began noticing something much more profound—something about culture, leadership, and humanity.

Here are three takeaways that made me see this Starbucks not just as a coffee shop, but as a quiet masterclass in leadership.

Finish Reading →

In my career, I’ve had the rare opportunity to experience two vastly different types of leadership. They’ve left such a deep impression that I now see them not just as management styles, but as philosophies of life.

Picture this.

One type of leader treats the workplace like a race.

• Win fast. Win hard. Win at all costs.
• Efficiency is everything. Drive the team like an engine on max throttle—results over relationships.
• It’s about hierarchy, competition, and stories of lone heroes rising above the rest.
• There’s praise, yes—but it’s often delivered by contrasting one teammate as “brilliant” by calling another “not good enough.” The goal? Inspire through comparison. Motivate through fear of inadequacy.

The other treats work like a marathon.

• Pacing matters. Shared progress. Winning together.
• Effectiveness over frenzy. Use the car only when needed—not just because we paid for it.
• Here, growth isn’t measured just in revenue or headcount, but in how much people actually want to come to work.
• There are no whispered stories of who’s underperforming. Instead, leaders work hard to make everyone’s strengths visible and valued.

Finish Reading →