Leadership
- “To Employers: End rigid notice periods. Retain people with purpose, not policies.”
- “To Employees: Don’t fall for brand names. Choose growth over logos.”
- “To Policymakers: Reform labor laws to discourage long notice periods and encourage healthy job mobility.”
- 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.
- 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.
- You’re trained to outsmart, outshine, outperform—even deceive.
- Respect is conditional. Trust is transactional.
- Leadership is about control, comparison, and closing deals fast.
- You’re guided to be truthful, collaborative, and proud of collective wins.
- Respect is mutual. Trust is foundational.
- Leadership is about care, character, and continuous growth.
Why India’s IT Talent Is Trapped: A Conversation That Got Me Thinking
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.”
Friend: “Exactly. And most good candidates are stuck in 3-month notice periods. Even if I find someone, there’s no guarantee they’ll join. They spend those months collecting offers and pick whoever bids highest in the last week.”
Me: “I’ve seen that. We faced the same when hiring in India. The 3-month notice period is a nightmare.”
Friend: “And guess what? Half the people on our internal bench aren’t right for the project either.”
Me: “But isn’t that what the bench is for? Deploying available talent?”
Friend: “In theory. But in reality, many are placed to protect ‘Revenue at Risk’ accounts. We’re hoarding people in roles just to avoid penalties or losing clients. It’s not about matching skills to projects anymore.”
Me: “So even when the bench looks full, you still have to hire contractors?”
Friend: “Exactly. Contractors come in as a stop-gap, but management wants them gone as soon as knowledge transfer is done.”
Me: “That’s a broken system. These long notice periods breed disengagement. Your situation’s a real-world example.”
Friend: “Right. And people think working in a big consulting firm is prestigious. But inside, it’s chaos.”
Me: “So, what do you think should change?”
Friend:
Me: “You know what? This conversation deserves to be written up. It’s not just your problem. It’s the entire industry’s problem.”
Friend (laughing): “You do that. Maybe someone will finally listen.”
“India’s future talent hubs will be small, purpose-driven firms. Pride comes from impact, not brand.”
How I Avoided Being a Bad Exec by Respecting the Maker’s Schedule
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.
This Microbit Didn’t Spark a Tech Career — It Prevented One
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.
What a Barista Who Couldn’t Speak Taught Me About Leadership
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.
Race vs. Marathon: The Two Leaders I've Chosen
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.
The other treats work like a marathon.
In the race world:
In the marathon world:
A Moment From the Marathon
I once saw the early signs of this “race” mindset taking root—right in a team I had helped build.
Back in the early days of the offshore team I was helping scale up, a group of three began subtly vying for influence. Rather than collaborating they started escalating issues directly to me, bypassing the person right next to them. It was an early warning sign—one that reminded me just how quickly hierarchy and competition can sneak in.
At our next monthly company-wide meeting, I brought it up—not as a scolding, but as a reset. I clarified that there was no pecking order. That line managers existed only for operational efficiency—not as symbols of rank, authority, or value.
What happened next was quietly powerful. A new sense of camaraderie formed. People opened up more, leaned on each other, and worked as a unit again. It felt like we were back on the marathon track. A horizontal hierarchy was established.
Unfortunately, wider organizational dynamics eventually pulled us back into a more traditional vertical hierarchy. The culture shifted, and with it came the usual symptoms—guardedness, mistrust, and subtle internal competition.
But that brief period remains a reminder: when leadership makes space for equality, people naturally move toward connection—not comparison.
One type of leader rewards clever deception and praises the ability to “play the game.” The other promotes honesty, mutual respect, and morals over manipulation.
One builds walls of hierarchy. The other builds bridges across roles.
One talks about money as the final prize, the endpoint. The other treats meaningful work as a lifelong journey worth continuing—even without a finish line.
The first type gets things done. But often at the cost of joy, trust, and personal dignity or a contrived version of these qualities that is imposed in a manipulative way. The second type? They might move slower. They might not scale teams to giant sizes or show dramatic profit spikes overnight. But they create something that lasts: a culture of happiness, of togetherness, of shared purpose.
Interestingly, I’ve come to believe that these leadership instincts aren’t just personal—they’re cultural. The first kind of leader I worked with was shaped by a world that prizes competition, individualism, and high-stakes performance—traits often emphasized in Western corporate environments. The second came from a background steeped in Eastern philosophies, where cooperation, inner balance, and mutual respect are often held in higher regard. For him, leading like a marathon runner came naturally.
The strange thing is, many people I know still believe the first kind is “how leadership works.” But it doesn’t have to be. It’s not just about what kind of leader you are. It’s also about what kind of leadership you choose to accept around you.
Not every team needs to be a race team. Not every finish line is worth the sprint.
The kind of leadership we accept—or enable—shapes more than our output. It shapes how we feel about ourselves, our work, and each other.
So, ready to choose the leader you’d like to become yourself? The world is full of wonderful people. Start finding your type, now.
Part 3: Offshoring Is a Business Model—Not a Cost-Cutting Exercise
> _"Startups build for scale. Consulting firms often build for speed—until they hit a wall."_
I’ve seen it too many times.
In Part 1, I explained why consultants get laid off even when revenue is good.
In Part 2, I showed how a hybrid offshore-onsite model gives companies more time before resorting to cuts.
Now let’s talk about what many leaders get wrong—when and why they introduce offshoring.
Because here’s the truth:
By the time you’re scrambling to “cut costs,” it’s already too late to build culture, delivery maturity, or trust offshore.
That’s not offshoring. That’s damage control.
Part 1: Why Am I Being Made Redundant? Understanding The Consulting Business Model
When I asked my friend:
“Do you know the business you’re in?”
He paused, then said, “I’m a data scientist. Why should I worry about that?”
That’s when I realised: most people working in consulting don’t actually understand the business model they’re part of. They’re brilliant in their domains—data, design, software, delivery—but they operate without context on how their company earns revenue or why layoffs really happen.