6 AM Pacific

Be There or Be Square

I used to do a lot of theater in school and college. So much so that I remember a conversation I had with a Psychology professor at IIT (I also did every Humanities course I could!) about how I could combine my interest in active theater with a career.

Well, it never panned out. I never stepped on a stage after entering the work force. But recently, as I take a break from full-time work, an opportunity came my way via a friend and I jumped on it. On July 23rd, the curtain goes up on 30 Days in September. This play by Mahesh Dattani is easily the most intense, powerful play I have ever done. At 70 minutes it is compact. There are only four actors (though I play four roles!). The other three actors and the director Rooben Morgan, are all experienced pros (unlike me!)

If you live in the Bay Area or are visiting, please come see the play. There are seven shows in San Francisco. More details can be found here. Tickets are available here.

The Quest for Higher Bill Rates

Thanks for all your comments on last week’s post on Local Hiring. Here’s the outline of the key issues we want to tackle in another chapter of the book called The Quest for Higher Bill Rates.

The need for higher bill rates, or rather services/solutions that will yield higher bill rates, is a consequence of two things.

One, with commoditization of major services like Offshore outsourcing, Application Maintenance, Customer service call centers and others (the list gets longer all the time), there is downward pressure on rates. Customers understand the service well and feel that they can manage the vendor to reduce risk. Deal consultants like TPI drive the commoditization even further.

Secondly, with strong growth comes competition for talent. Which leads to wage increases well above the rate increases that can be reasonably expected from clients.

Put together, the pressure on margins is tremendous. It helps that vendor switching costs are high, which mitigates the downward pressure somewhat with existing clients. But the need to do something to protect margins is going to become crucial in the future.

Increasing bill rates can be achieved in two ways. One, by differentiating core services to be able to command a premium over competition. Some services like large scale Offshore Outsourcing deals come with a fair amount of risk. Clients are often willing to pay a premium to a vendor who has a great track record and a solution that meets their needs. Within limits this can work well.

But what really pays dividends is investing in new services. New services are less competitive and the ability to make really high margins is great. For example, in the early days of ERP related services, we weren’t doing end-to-end implementations at Infosys, but revenue growth was strong and the margins were terrific. Why? because there weren’t too many service providers who could do offshore ERP work. The only alternative for clients was to have one of the Big 5 consultants do it for them at exorbitant rates, which left a lot of headroom for offshore service providers.

New services have always made good money. Until of course commoditization sets in. The trick therefore is to be a service innovator. Start early and stay ahead of competition. As the market expands, the early pain pays off in the form of high margin, high growth revenues.

But we are now at a stage in the industry where service innovation by itself is not good enough. The addressable space in new services that are being launched now is much smaller than the markets already being addressed. The impact that the new services can make on the company’s margin is therefore smaller. We may still not be there yet, but within five years, services that are new today will also have seen commoditization and there won’t be enough potential in introducing new services at that time.

This is not to say that the potential for innovation will go away. Quite the contrary. The action will shift from services to solutions – bundled services and IP that tackle a specific business problem. The IP included could be a platform that accompanies the service, or just a deep understanding of the business problem and the experience of having solved similar ones many times before.

By its very nature, each solution will have a smaller addressable space, but in aggregate could offer great potential. Pricing could be traditional time based pricing or it could be by transaction. The key thing is that competition will low and so there will be more freedom in pricing. The client is likely to look at the cost of the solution vis a vis the value it brings to his business.

This is a very profound change for the Indian offshore industry. Their approach to business thus far has been ‘build it and they will come’ – which works fine for services. But for solutions, you have to be out there, in the flow of what’s happening in your clients’ businesses. Identify pain points that can be solved by the combination of technology and services. And then invest the time and money to build a solution. You go from being an expert in delivering a service to becoming an expert on a business problem or process.

It also means that services companies will have to make many ‘bets’. Solutions require investment. How do you decide where to put your money? Or how much. Because of this difficult transition, I think that services companies will largely acquire technology or IP for their first solutions, instead of building it themselves.

How else will this transition from services to solutions affect companies?

What’s the Size of the Offshore Industry?

I thought I knew the answer to this one. Turns out, the correct answer is “it depends”.

The GoI puts out a number which is called “Miscellaneous- of which Software Services” or Software Services in short. This data is available on the RBI website. The number for 2008-09 is $46.3 B (yes, the RBI does give data in both Rs. and USD).

This number comes from the Balance of Payments report. Software Services is actually not clubbed with Exports. It is part of Invisibles, along with Travel, Financial Services etc. – services that can be sold to parties outside the country but are never “shipped”.

This Software Services number includes both IT Services and BPO (and all other variants of XXS and XXO) but includes only revenue from billing done by Indian companies or Indian subsidiaries to their foreign clients or foreign parent companies. The problem with this number is that for an Indian company like Mindtree with no subsidiaries it will be pretty close to actual revenue, but for a company like Cognizant it will be what the Indian sub bills the parent for services provided. In all likelihood this number will be cost plus something like 15%, which is well below the typical mark up on offshore services of more than 100%. Additionally, for Cognizant the entire onsite revenue will be excluded.

I actually didn’t really check if Mindtree has foreign subs or not, but if it did then the RBI number would exclude the subsidiaries’ revenues, including only the Indian parents billing on the subs.

So, as you can see, the $46.3 B number is well under what you would consider the true revenue of the Offshore industry, which includes onsite operations related to the offshore business.

NASSCOM tries to correct for this revenue by including the revenue of foreign subs, but I don’t believe it does anything about the Cognizant situation where a foreign company has a sub in India. In truth, that is a slippery slope and it shouldn’t even attempt it. To figure out the onsite revenue associated purely with the offshore business is impossible to orchestrate over all companies. Imagine trying to do that at Accenture or Keane.

Also, included in the RBI number as also in the NASSCOM number are exports from Captives where onsite operations may not even be meaningful.

Anyway, that answers the question that used to puzzle me for the longest time – why are all the charts for software exports and not the Industry revenue? Sometimes you measure what’s measurable and leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

By the way, I had been tearing my hair out trying to get the net Exports data for the IT-BPO industry. Finally found it when I came upon the RBI database dbie.rbi.org.in/ which is quite comprehensive and easy to use, though difficult to find. I sent some feedback. They fixed the data and sent me an email in one day! On the other hand, I sent an email to NASSCOM’s research department. No reply after a week. Go figure.

Why is Local Hiring in Offshore Services so Sparse?

For some parts of the book that I feel the need to reach out to my blog readers. Your feedback will make a better product.

One of the chapters in the book is on Local Hiring – why Indian services companies haven’t hired in greater numbers and why it might become more important to do so in the future.

The percentage of employees in Indian IT Services companies who are Indian (born and brought up in India) is definitely over 95%. If you leave out the employees acquired through acquisitions, local hires (Americans in the US, Germans in Germany) are a rounding off error. Why is this so low?

Over 95% of the revenues of Indian services companies comes from outside India. 20 to 30% of billable employees are onsite. Shouldn’t you expect a higher proportion of employees to be hired locally? After all, IT Services is a high-touch business. If you are onsite, you are constantly working with client personnel. Cultural proximity, common backgrounds, networks from college and prior jobs must be of great value. Yet, local hiring is still very slim.

There are some good reasons why this might be so.

One, Offshore services is a very unstructured business. Every project is different – client needs, business processes, size of project – can all differ greatly from one project to another. The use of templates is limited to a few project processes only. Most of the project requires “new work” every time which in turn requires a fair bit of collaboration among the project team members – both offshore and onsite. This need for intense collaboration makes it much easier if the onsite team members are actually offshore team members who have moved onsite temporarily.

Then there are cost reasons as well. Not so much compensation which for most companies is within range of what it would cost them to hire locally. But there are other reasons why the costs are higher to hire locally. Like the fact that a local employee would likely need travel and living since the project can’t always be in the metro area in which she lives. Also, for local hires, bench costs are at onsite wages.

Outside of Delivery – in Sales and Consulting – the cost reasons above don’t apply. At one time, there was a salary difference. But now, Enterprise IT Sales and Consulting are both in decline and Indian Services companies have upped compensation substantially. So that isn’t a reason either.

But even here, I feel that companies feel torn between the need to hire folks who could be more effective in forming relationships with clients and the need for them to work effectively with offshore teams. Anyone who has worked in the industry knows that a salesperson’s effectiveness can often depend upon how good his access is to expertise and resources in the company.

The only place where there really are no barriers to hire are in senior positions in Sales and Consulting. Where you get the value of their experience in a certain industry and their networks but on the ground the proposals and staffing of projects is handled by other people. But here too there is a mismatch in expectations.

While Indian companies haven’t shown much urgency in hiring locally, it’s not as if potential employees are trying to break down the door either. Perceptions in the marketplace about Indian services companies are that you are generally “thrown into the pool to sink or swim” with very little support. Also, that policies aren’t as employee friendly as their current employers. You don’t have a life any more and work takes up every waking hour. Although, I think this is the nature of the offshore business, and if they are still working regular hours, it will change soon.

Going forward, local hiring will become more important. Winning business is now less about technical expertise, which is assumed. It is about domain expertise – do you understand my business process well enough? It is going to be pretty tough to build domain expertise organically – through the work the company does for clients. Hiring industry expertise into the company either from industry or from other consulting companies will become necessary to compete.

Also, there is the issue of optics. Can you do X billion dollars of business in a country, with tens of thousands of employees in the country and hire just a handful from the local market? The law may allow it, but you have to do much more in the court of public opinion.

Take Toyota for example. When they started putting up manufacturing plants in the US in the 80s, it was probably much easier to just expand in Japan. But they knew that if they were going to be a significant player in the huge US market, they had to do some local manufacturing. Today, Toyota has manufacturing facilities in many states in the US. When they ran into trouble earlier this year because of their quality problems, their American employees and politicians from the states that have the factories, supported them.

In a few years US or Europe based competitors who are rapidly adopting the offshore model will have a truly global workforce with a (largely) India delivery model. If nothing changes, Indian companies will be almost entirely Indian. The lack of diversity will lead to a lack of diversity of thinking. And exposed to political games.

For Budding Social Entrepreneurs

Many friends and people I know have been taking up responsibilities or causes that have a social objective. Education is a particularly good field where the needs are great in India and where people like us have been beneficiaries of a good education and all that comes with it.

Friend and former colleagues P R Ganapathy and Sandeep Shroff are both involved with non-profits. Guns, who is going back to India will spend part of his time with Teach for India. Sandeep has been involved with the Indian Literacy Project here in the Bay Area for many years. I do my little bit through my father’s trust Digjyoti Trust that supports higher education for orphaned and disadvantaged children.

Aside from the non-profit route, others are succeeding with a commercial model, but with a social objective embedded within it. Samhita Academy is one such educational institution. Their flagship school in Bangalore is doing quite well even though it is in just its third year.

The school is backed by the family of S. D. Shibulal, a friend, former colleague and founder of Infosys. Asha Thomas, Exec Director and her team have done a fantastic job in laying a solid foundation of the school. The infrastructure, staff, teaching methods – everything points to an excellent school in the making.

25% of the student population of Samhita Academy comprises of disadvantaged children whose costs are borne by the school. As Samhita Academy sets up more schools this objective will carry into the other schools as well. However, and this is the interesting thing, Samhita Academy is a commercially run enterprise. The fees must cover all costs. Why? because Shibu believes that this is a better model. If the schools are run like a commercial enterprise, the model becomes much more scalable. Ultimately, the social objective too is served better if the schools succeed commercially and expand to many more cities.

Samhita wants to now expand with more schools in other cities. They are looking for a leadership team. If you or anyone you know has climbed all the mountains you wanted to in your corporate job, and wanted to do something different and more meaningful, please contact Samhita. Or drop me a note and I’ll pass it on.

You Are the Technology Choices You Make

I finally dumped my HTC Hero on Sprint. I just couldn’t take it anymore – missing calls and the “click lag” on the HTC Hero. In the bargain, I learnt a few things:

Tech reviewers are biased. If they were truly honest in their reviews they would end up trashing the odd deserving candidate. Which would cut off their access to deliberately leaked official rumours and pre-release device units. So their praise is fulsome and the tear downs are gentle to non-existent. The HTC Hero was praised to high heavens. And I got taken in.

The best way to decide on buying a new product is to trial the product or ask a friend who has similar proclivities when it comes to personal technology. Someone I know, strongly recommended the T-mobile G1 to me just about when I was in the market for a new phone – I should have at least given it a try. But no, I had to reach out for the new, shiny object.

I like physical keyboards. I used a blackberry for ever, before I got the touch screen only HTC Hero. It’s possible that a touch screen that performs better, like the iPhone’s, might have been a better experience, but I doubt that I would prefer it to something with a physical keyboard. I can touch type on a computer keyboard. I don’t know if that contributes to it, or its the way I am, but I just can’t stand typing on a touch screen. After just two days with the G1 I am already typing longer emails than I ever did with the Hero.

I like Google’s sense of design. The G1 is not a very good looking phone compared to the eyecandy you see out there nowadays. But it has everything I need, and very little that I don’t. For Google, functionality and performance trumps every thing else. But when it doesn’t get in the way, they do pay attention to the aesthetics. Which is very different from the idea of HTC Sense, which sits on top of Android and now T-mobile itself is adding on an additional layer. Blah! who needs all that crud.

I consider myself to be an early adopter of technology. Not bleeding edge, but definitely by the time version 2 rolls around (yes, that would still make me an early adopter, maybe not compared to you dear reader, but compared to the rest of humanity that includes my Dad).

Early adoption of technology involves two big sacrifices – switching costs of learning something new and the risk that all the pieces may not be working as well as they should. For me learning something new is not an investment – it is learning and even entertainment – a plus rather than a minus. But I would rather wait than take the frustration of something that has rickety performance. For a less important app, like say a utility for taking screen shots, its OK to have a few features missing. But if its your cell phone you don’t want to mess with it (although, I did). I expect, in this regard, I am not very different from a lot of folks who read this blog.

Like everyone else, I like a good deal. So I bought my G1 on eBay and got a no contract deal with T-mobile. Soon the Pradhan family will be moving over to T-mobile as well and we will save something like $100 a month.

The only problem – T-mobile wouldn’t give me a post-paid contract – it seems my credit isn’t good enough. Which left me scratching my head because there is no problem with my credit (I checked). I concluded that this must be because we don’t carry any debt, so we don’t have enough credit history. It is a sign of the times that you need to be indebted first to get more debt.

Which wouldn’t make any difference, except that for some reason Google Voice voice mail integration does not work with pre-paid T-mobile. Oh well, nothing’s perfect!

An Update

Some readers have asked for an update on the book. So I’ll start with that first.

Gaurav and I started out thinking of the book as a “How To” book on Offshore Services. But as we started writing it, it was turning out to be like writing a technical book – dry, precise and meant for the practitioner. In short, not a whole lot of fun.

I spoke to a well-known writer whose own book went through a little bit of a metamorphosis as well. Her advice was to write the book that you want to and will love to.

So we switched tracks and started thinking about a book that would be useful, widely read but also fun to write. A book about the Offshore industry that would go into all the issues and challenges facing it today and in the future. But it would be simply written so that even readers outside the industry could appreciate it.

That’s the book idea we took to Penguin. They liked it and they will publish the book in India in 2011. We plan to simultaneously self-publish with Amazon for markets outside the sub-continent.

On the personal front things have made a big U turn with my son Naren, who I wrote about a few months ago. In April the school district allowed him to attend regular school, but a different school. Yesterday was his last day at Hopkins Jr. High. We were confident that Naren would do well, but he exceeded all expectations. Not a single behavioural incident and every teacher had good things to say about him. In a new school, in just a short period of time, he made friends. The boy was determined to do well and he succeeded with flying colors. He also got a 4.0 for the last term. He now feels very confident that he can overcome his challenges and succeed in life.

There was good news outside of school too. Naren was accepted into the music composition summer program of the SF Conservatory. It is a prestigious program that’s hard to get into. He is absolutely thrilled about it. He now has a channel on YouTube where his compositions for the piano are posted. He also writes frequently on his blog at narenpradhan.wordpress.com about video games, scripts for TV shows and environmental issues.

Our battle with the school district to get Naren the right placement and services has been long and hard. It is not over yet but the worst is behind us. My wife and I can now start thinking about a future where life catches some kind of a groove.

A couple of other updates. I am doing a conference along with BRICS Securities which is slated for August in Mumbai. The conference will look at the long-term trends and issues in the Offshore Services industry. We are in the process of confirming the panelists for the panel discussions. I’ll post an update as we cover more ground.

In college I was very active in dramatics. Since graduating, I have wanted to, but have never had the time to commit to doing a play. Well, an opportunity came my way recently and I grabbed it. Who knows if I’ll ever have the time again.

The play [link is now updated] is a Mahesh Dattani play called “30 Days in September”. We will be doing eight shows in San Francisco in July. If you live here, I hope you’ll come.

Tablets and Netbooks

TechCrunch reports that Forrester Research has new research out that predicts that tablet computers will overtake netbook sales by 2012 and desktop computer sales by 2013. Only laptop computers will sell more than tablets.

At the height of the netbook fever I had commented on a post on Ajay Shah’s blog:

In reading his posts and yours, I wonder if we aren’t conflating two distinct properties of netbooks – small and cheap. From what we seek in India – deeper penetration of computers – “small” is no good, unless it in fact is the cause of “cheap”. A small keyboard and screen, in fact will prove to be a hindrance to adoption if this is going to be the first computer for people.

I never believed that netbooks were a different game-changing kind of computer. It was just a cheaper one. That tablets will overtake them is not a big stretch. But for tablets to become the largest selling personal computing device after laptops, that’s something.

I’ll confess, I don’t own an iPad. I’ve played around it at the nearby Best Buy. It has sex appeal, no doubt. But I find it difficult to imagine it as a serious computing device. Data input is always going to be challenging compared to a laptop. I just can’t see people buying an iPad as their only computer for personal use. It will probably have to be their second or third one.

It also can’t take the replacement market for computers at home for the same reason. So you’re looking at a market comprising of people who have enough disposable income for the tablet and the wireless data plan as a discretionary second or third computer for personal use. Essentially, it is a luxury good. I think its sales curve will also behave like that – quick uptake from early tech adopters but no hockey stick like the iPod or iPhone.

What this doesn’t factor in is the use of tablets in business. There is much in the air about tablet computers in healthcare. It does sound plausible that they will find a market in some industries. Another trend that could be favourable for it, but one that I am not seeing so far, is if people use a tablet with a docked station as their primary computer. I use a docked laptop at home but most people find it too cumbersome. I don’t think that will be a significant factor.

All that said, my hunches are shaped by my experiences. Unlike a lot of people, I find it painful to type on a screen. After years of using a blackberry, I tried out the HTC Hero. My experience has been so poor that I am now moving to an old Android phone, the G1, that has a keyboard. So clearly, you have to take what I think about touch screen devices with a large pinch of salt.

The Problem With Being Unsure

Felix Salmon writes about Helen Thomas having to quit her job after she said some nasty stuff on camera

Thomas gave voice to an opinion which she then, almost immediately, retracted; no one, in the subsequent debate, defended the substance of her remarks. She was wrong; everybody, including Thomas, agrees on that point, and no real harm was done to anyone but Thomas when the video of her remarks surfaced.

But if you turn out to be wrong, even temporarily, even only once, on a hot-button issue, that’s enough for effective excommunication from polite society. That, to me, is chilling: I’d much rather live in a world where people should be able to change their minds and should be allowed to be wrong on occasion. For surely we are all wrong, much more often than we like to think.

He then points to something Tyler Cowen said on bloggingheads.tv

Take whatever your political beliefs happen to be. Obviously the view you hold you think is most likely to be true, but I think you should give that something like 60-40, whereas in reality most people will give it 95 to 5 or 99 to 1 in terms of probability that it is correct. Or if you ask people what is the chance this view of yours is wrong, very few people are willing to assign it any number at all. Or if you ask people who believe in God or are atheists, what’s the chance you’re wrong – I’ve asked atheists what’s the chance you’re wrong and they’ll say something like a trillion to one, and that to me is absurd, that even if you think all of the strongest arguments for atheism are correct, your estimate that atheism is in fact the correct point of view shouldn’t be that high, maybe you know 90-10 or 95 to 5, at most. So that maybe is my most absurd view. Most things are much more up for grabs than we like to say they are.

I took away different things from these. if there is anything worse than being wrong it is being doubtful. Is this cultural? Or is it just human?

Rationally, Helen Thomas quitting is sort of wrong. She has an opinion which may be reprehensible to many of us, but it is still an opinion. She did not commit a crime. She probably even has an argument for why she is morally correct in holding that opinion. In any case, she recanted. In spite of that, why is it that Helen Thomas has to quit but this racist state senator doesn’t have to?

Expressing an opinion makes you belong to a certain group who hold the same opinion. The strength of that group – in size and the power of its members – and that of the group that holds opposing views – often determines whether you are right or wrong. Which completely explains why in today’s America anti-semitism can get you punished instantly, but racist remarks can be a cold, calculated play for fringe votes.

Politics and big business drive culture, especially, what is acceptable for public figures and celebrities. Investors will punish a CEO for being wrong (Prudential CEO, Tidjane Thiam) or being in the wrong place at the wrong time and then saying the wrong thing (“I want my life back” – Tony Hayward, BP CEO). But if there is one thing worse than being wrong, it is to be unsure of your beliefs.

Tyler Cowen would like people to be rational and admit that their opinions could have a higher probability of being wrong. But do people really want their leaders to not believe that they are 100% correct?

Imagine if President Obama were selling HCR by saying that “I am 100% certain that this bill will pull millions of uninsured into a life of dignity but only 60% sure that it will reduce our spending on healthcare in the long-term.” Which is pretty much the odds the most optimistic economist might give you.

People don’t even like their leaders to change their opinions. We call it flip-flopping. We not only want our leaders to be certain, we want them to have been certain about the issue at hand, since they gained consciousness. It also helps if their parents had the same stand on said issue.

This is not a development that is recent. Replying to a criticism during the Great Depression of having changed his position on monetary policy, John Keynes was pressured enough to burst out:

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

I believe that this is a universal phenomenon. Human beings desire strong leaders – fearless and without doubt. Leadership, therefore becomes typed with certitude which becomes a desirable trait even for non-leaders. Which is perhaps unfortunate. With a 70% probability, that is.

IT Services Companies Should Empower Middle Management

Last week was quite eventful in the “Workshop of the World”. Foxconn, a Chinese manufacturer for companies such as Apple, Dell and HP, gave a 20% ad hoc raise to its workers after as many as ten suicides which called into question the working conditions at its plants. Fox Conn employs 800,000 workers in 20 plants across China.

Then it was Honda’s turn. Workers in Honda’s four factories in China struck work bringing all production in China to a halt. Yesterday Honda gave a 24% raise to workers, who were still not happy.

The strike in of itself was quite surprising. From FT

The right to strike was excised from the Chinese constitution in 1982, and attempts by workers to organise outside the official All China Federation of Trade Unions are frowned on by Beijing.

Amenities at Chinese factories like Foxconn are actually considered to be good. From Guardian

Foxconn is proud of the fact that it provides a swimming pool and other facilities to its staff, as well as organising chess, calligraphy, mountain climbing and fishing.

At both companies pay is not great but is above the legal minimum wage. Many workers make much more by working overtime.

How is this, in any way connected with the Indian IT employees’ angst? They are both about employees having nowhere to go with their problems.

Even though their demands and managements’ responses have been focused on pay increases, Chinese employees taking on their managements, is not really about salaries. How can it be when most employees come from the hinterland where wages are poor, that is, when there are jobs available? It is because the workers feel powerless. They are lost in these huge organizations. Foxconn has 800,000 employees. Honda also employs a similar number across its four plants. The “official” trade union is not elected and is really part of the establishment – a proxy for management. The workers have nowhere to go with their problems.

Cut to the Indian IT Services industry. Most of the successful companies of today are very centralized in how they operate. Historically, this was necessary. To scale up they had to build an organization which ran efficient, repeatable processes. For that it was necessary to have strong central control. But the very thing that helped them scale engineering and business processes, made the middle management powerless and weakened the bonds between the company and employee. It failed at the most important aspect of scaling a company – in building a loyal, motivated workforce.

When a company is small, the founders or the members of the top management know everybody themselves or with one degree of separation. They infuse the whole company with their values. Employees form a relationship with the company based upon these shared values.

But as the company grows, one degree of separation becomes two, three, four and more. Pretty soon what top management gets to hear is what they hear from their direct reports. What they have to say is said to a select few or to the media. How do you continue to build trust with your employees? You can’t do it yourself. So you must have your middle managers become interlocutors for you.

The problem is that middle managers are so disenfranchised that they feel powerless. They are the ones who run the delivery teams, who make the company tick. But they don’t have the leeway to solve their own day-to-day problems. When they take their problems to their superiors they discover that they too are powerless. So they just keep punching the clock. If somebody in their team comes to them with a problem, they just say, “I can’t help it, that’s the way it is”. When the rank and file IT worker starts griping about the company, some of these managers stay silent. Others join the griping. Nobody defends the company. They can’t. They don’t believe in it themselves. That’s where the battle is being lost.

In the case of Chinese workers, establishing a union that is truly representative might actually be the solution. Empowering middle management is less effective. In manufacturing there is a “class divide” between managers and workers, often based upon education and qualifications. Very few workers will ever be promoted into management. So the “us vs them” feeling almost guarantees strife, especially if as in the case of Honda, the Japanese managers earn much, much higher salaries.

But in an IT Services company every engineer has the qualifications to become the CEO of the company. It should therefore be easier to bridge the divide. Also, regardless of the quantity of outpouring on the internet, it still does not represent widespread disaffection.

Winning back middle management is the first step in turning things around with employee relations. Stuffing their mouths with money just pushes out the day of reckoning.