Changing the voice of Performance Management

 In Agile, every morning, in the standup meeting, we answer three simple questions: 

A. What did I do yesterday? 

B. What will I do today? 

C. What support do I need. 

As anyone who has been in an Agile Standup knows, there is no judgement in these meetings. No performance appraisal. It's a team, sharing its work with all its members, and asking for support in an open forum, where anyone can help. 

That's where I got the idea - this is what performance discussions should be like - sharing, not judging, appreciating, not assessing. 

On Britain

It is very easy to make memes. It is very hard to read. 

If Rishi Sunak is today the Prime Minister of Britain, the credit also goes to the average Briton who chose him. As the UK economy struggles (along with many other European economies), we have to understand that this is a country we are talking about. Real people. 

Even understanding this situation will take days of reading - just to answer the question - How did we get here? - will take days. Then, we need to give the leadership our patience. No matter how genius he is, he will not be able to turn the economy around in a few weeks. It is time to stop the sops and take long term policy measures. Those will take a few months to show results, and there are no easy answers. 

Will it work? It has to. Primarily because I trust Britain's ability to come out on top. This is a resilient society. A good leader, with a long term perspective and the ability to execute well, will transform the current challenge into a winning event. 

Moving from ZTA to RTA - The Importance of Right Recruitment

Ignorance is a decision. In this day and age, Ignorance can only be a decision. 

ZTA stands for Zero Trust Architecture. 

Simply put, this means that all employees on all systems will have "need to know" level access only. 

While ZTA is the new favourite flavour of the security fraternity, is it really the silver bullet we've been looking for? 

I believe that ZTA will create a culture of inherent mistrust. While that may stop security incidents in the short term, this mistrust will only lead to greater vulnerability over a longer period. 

I would, instead, like to propose RTA - Reasonable Trust Architecture. 

In this format (which is not very different from what we currently practise at many organisations): 

A. All employees are trusted. 

B. System access follows a simple protocol. Audits are in place and logs are automated and detailed. 

C. Simple checks like maker-checker are in place. 

Now, most readers are, at this point, shaking their heads and thinking, "No, this doesn't work. We tried it." 

It does. If we make ONE change. 

What do you think is the one change that will make the current RTA successful? 

It is Right Recruitment. 

Get the right people in. That's all it takes. Get people who have an unblemished security record. And genuine integrity. 

Remember that systems are hacked by humans. Deliberately. Willfully. or Stupidly. Rarely has a hack been possible without some human action. Whether it is social engineering, spear phishing, or any other format.

The right people will: 

A. Welcome rather than resist security and safety briefings - both physical safety and data security. 

B. Demonstrate a high level of personal and professional integrity. 

C. Actively report both security incidents and process vulnerabilities that they discover 

D. Insist on a culture of fairness and equity - Where everyone is taken at their word and looking over the shoulder or micromanagement is considered a form of professional disrespect. 

E. Believe inherently in the welfare of all or none. So long as one is left behind, we are all left behind - this should be their core ethos, not something they learn at work. 

F. Demonstrate the ability to work in groups and active empathy.  

For our case, let's call these people the Ants. 

What would Right Recruitment look like? 

Right recruitment is top-bottom. If the senior leadership recruits yes-people, they really cannot expect to find the ants further down the hierarchy.  

Right recruitment prioritises personality over experience. "Skills we can teach. Attitude you have to bring." - these golden words that I heard at the SAP interview still ring true. 

Right recruitment has zero tolerance on ethics. There is no "one time". The first ethical lapse is the final one. Would that make the culture toxic? Yes, for those who believe in flexible ethics. But it would make the culture incredibly secure for everyone else, because they would truly be in a place where everyone inherently trusts and is trustworthy. 

Right recruitment is hiring the person, not just hiring for the role. If you deserve to be in here, we will find something for you to do. - Can you imagine a workplace like that? 

Is that hard? Yes and No. 

In the Western management systems, which we currently follow, the individual is an absolute and most white-collar crimes are hushed up under the carpet. The person is asked to leave, and that is that. Whether it is POSH or corporate corruption, these things are just not recorded. 

But in the Indian management practice, a person's reputation precedes them. If they are found in POSH, or party to corporate corruption, they are brought to book and their actions made public. Most Indian business communities are specialised by industry and are close knit. Further, employment is typically a family thing. Like, if the father works at one office, it is assumed that once the child completes their education, they will be viewed favourably by the employer. This means that the price of dishonesty is not individual - it is a shock that reverberates through the entire family. Nor is it purely financial. Your "saakh" or social prestige is also destroyed by an incident like this. 

Even if we don't, or are not ready to adopt this paradigm, a simple case that I saw last night, would definitely argue for a more holistic approach to selection. 

The story is that the conductor of a bus in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was fired by his employer. This genius changed the display of the bus to show a cuss word, followed by the surname of the employer - also the name of the business. 

Now, one genius data analytics professional tweeted about this and added wink emojis to the post. 

The conductor, one might argue, is technically savvy and acted with mala fide intent. 

Therefore, the act of the data analyst who thinks abuse of privilege is funny, is, to my mind, a huge employment red flag. 

When hiring, I would like to access the public posts of the candidate. Those who think this is 'invasion of privacy' when we access your public posts on a public platform, obviously fall in the category of flexible ethics or multiple personalities. 

The Case of the Tweet

 #casestudy

Let's say we are considering hiring A. A has a public profile on social media with over 10,000 followers. It is a public profile on a public website.

As part of the BGV, we happen to reach their public SM profiles and are shocked to find that this person finds abuse of access privilege funny. In his public posts, he has lauded employees who abused access privilege to get back at employers and posted wink emojis for the impacted employers.

Would you go ahead with the hiring? Why/not?

Is Public Social Media access invasion of privacy?

 So, this guy, who is, by his own admission, in analytics, finds this abuse of access privilege funny. 

This is the real reason ZTA (Zero Trust Architecture) is needed. 

But on a more serious note, I definitely do not want to work with these folks - all 1200 plus who find this "funny". 

Which brings us to a pertinent question. As organisations, we do not want to have people who will allow something like this to happen. But what is the best way to check? 

This, here, imho, is a pertinent data point. The person thinks it is funny to change the password and to change the display to an abusive word. Do I want such a person in my team? God, No! 

But, if we access social media as part of the recruitment process, that is invasion of privacy.

 Yet, in this case, the risk of working with such a person far outweighs any threat to their "privacy" - shared only by 8,651 followers. 

At what point does it become ethical to look into the social media of a potential employee in the interest of the larger good? Today, a lot of organisations do this on the sly. But with posts like this, I would like us, as a society, to weigh whether the common good outweighs an individual's "privacy" on "public" platforms. 

Is accessing the public social media profile of a candidate invasion of their privacy? If we say yes, are we not accepting that it is ok for a person to present multiple personalities? Do we want to work with such people? 

It is not just enough to clean up one's speech. One must clean up the mind too. But that would be too much work. 

How to keep different passwords for different websites?

We are always warned to keep different passwords for different websites. 

But most of us recycle the same few passwords. 

I have figured out a way by which it IS possible to have different passwords for each website. 

About most new websites, we observe one or more things. 

Now, I make the most distinguished feature of that website as my password. Only I know that this website reminds me of Great UX, or this website is overwhelmingly blue (neither of these is an actual password, thanjuberimuch) 

Simble and easy to remember (yes i do add basic encoding to the original phrase.) 

How to create a handover system in a sales team

If you work in sales, chances are, your CRM or funnel system is a fairy tale - stuck in the past with very little connection with the reality of the world. 

Handovers in sales teams are especially difficult. It is not the fault of organisations or individual employees. Nor is it that the sales team does not want to do handover to the new team members. 

So: 

Why are handovers in sales such a pain? 

1. Because sales is a personal thing. A client is dealing with a person, not a company. All salespeople use their personal charm and knowledge to create great solutions for clients. Sales Team member A is not replaceable with Sales Team member B. One does not write everything. Because one cannot. For instance, I know that the CIO at Firm A values cost cutting above all else. The CIO at Firm B loves Ayn Rand. These are not things that matter to a formal sales process. This is one individual interacting with another individual. 

2. A lot of communication (and commitment) in sales is oral and undocumented. Whether we like it or not, this is what it is. 

3. There is sometimes a gap between the exit of one team member and the joining of the replacement. So, the handover time is either too short or nonexistent. 

 

4. Some clients will leave with the salesperson. That is how it is. 

How to make handovers work? 

First things first, handovers and takeovers are a function of two things: 

A. Person to person (and their time and personality overlap) 

B. Documentation maturity. 

A is a function of how nice the two individuals are, how well they get along, and how much time they have with each other. 

But B is a function of organisational process maturity. An organisation with a culture of process documentation and audits at the right time will find that much of its pain of transitions and audits will vanish.  

But in sales, A is as important as B. 

What do we do then, to ensure smooth handovers in sales? 

Enter: The Magic of Shadow 

This solution requires: 

A. A camaraderie within the team 

B. A small reporting span for sales leaders - no more than 4-5 people per sales leaders. Not a pack of 15-20 sales professionals reporting to one. 

What we need to ensure is adequate information redundancy (i.e., the information should be with more than one person so that if one person is not available, another person should know whats going on). 

The format is that once a week, the sales leaders take individual calls on which the events of the week are discussed. The sales leaders are free to take notes etc. But they are the redundancy/backup. This is because in sales, it would be unfair for people to be backups of each other, given the intense competition in sales. 

Being the information back up of their team is on the KRAs of the sales leader. They are required to meet with clients and potential clients at least once every 5 visits by the team member. That is why a small span of control is vital for this model to work. 

When a team member resigns... 

If a replacement is ready, they are immediately assigned to shadow the outgoing team member. If the replacement is not ready, the sales leader can take a call and assign another colleague or act as a shadow themselves. The latter option is not the best idea but sometimes one may not have a choice. 

This shadow remains with the outgoing team member till their last working day. 

Signing off on Knowledge Transfer 

One week before exit, there is a joint meeting which includes the outgoing team member, the sales leader, and the shadow. This is the formal KT sign off meeting. In this meeting, the process is as under: 

A. The shadow goes over the list of clients being managed by the outgoing team member and specifically lists: 

    i. The Scope of work  

    ii. Important client stakeholders 

    iii. Current stage 

    iv. Other competitors in fray and their relative standing 

    v. Timeline of decision and delivery 

    vi. Internally, who are our stakeholders for delivery of order 

B. The sales leader compares this information with their own notes to ensure that: 

    i. All clients in the team member's charter are covered. 

    ii. All details are covered and are accurate. 

    iii. In case of some clients, the sales lead can ask additional questions to ensure that the shadow knows everything that they should know. 

If the sales leader is convinced that handover has happened, they can sign off on the process. 

If the shadow falters on any information, the person who is penalised is not the shadow but the outgoing employee. Their exit checklist can only begin with this handover signoff. 

Once this signoff as per the checklist is given, the outgoing employee and the sales leader cannot then question the shadow on why they did not ask the outgoing employee x or y. The responsibility for signoff therefore is with the original backup - the sales leader. 

If the Signoff fails 

If the first signoff at T-7 fails, a second sign off is scheduled anytime from T-3 to T-0 day, based on everyone's convenience. 

The second sign off is the final signoff. 

The same checklist is followed this time too. 

If the sign off is cleared, the outgoing team member can begin their exit checklist and other exit formalities. 

If the sign off is not cleared, the exit formalities cannot begin. 

No sensible employee will want their exit formalities to be delayed. This process ensures that everyone is invested in ensuring a smooth and complete handover. 

When the replacement joins

When the replacement team member joins, they then work alongside the shadow for 1 month or more, and then the sign off process with the sales leader is repeated once again. Only after the handover sign off can the team member holding additional responsibility get off. 

But, shadowing is extra work! 

Yes, and this should not be ignored. The performance management framework needs to reward employees who act as shadows while a replacement is being hired. This can be in regular KRAs, or be noted as "Exceptional Contribution" based on how frequent this is. Sales is a stressful role as it is, and any extra work deserves to be acknowledged and rewarded in a structured framework.

Other linkages with PMS 

The other linkages that need to be established with the formal performance management system are: 

A. Sales Leader - Ensuring smooth handovers should be the KRA of the sales leader. Zero tolerance for client loss due to team attrition needs to be laid out. 

B. Incoming Employee - If the replacement is a new hire,their "Time to Productivity" and rampup roadmap should be in their KRAs. If process documentation and shadowing is in place, this rampup should not exceed 40-60 days. 

 

India and the entrepreneur mindset

My son was pitching his startup to a real, live audience for the first time this weekend. The event had 10 fantastic ideas by students from all parts of the country. While the brilliance of these ideas and their bold execution took one by surprise, what really got my attention was how each speaker (each of them a stellar entrepreneur themselves) spoke about the dire need to pull our children out of the job seeker mindset and to instill in them the job creator mindset. 

"In school, don't think of how you will kill your creativity and do a course to become a job seeker. Think about how you will harness and unleash the same creativity to be a job creator by the time you graduate from college." 

- Said one of the speakers. 

Another speaker said: 

The British have worked hard to make sure our children grow up with the clerk mindset. Change what your education is telling you to become. Give up the clerk mindset and get the entrepreneur mindset. 

********** 

Obviously, these quotes make one think immediately of the Gujaratis, who traditionally look down upon jobs as a form of slavery and inspire each child to start something of their own. It is a cultural thing. 

And then, one got to thinking some more: 

From the days of Indus Valley Civilisation, India has been and continues to be, at its heart, a mercantile civilisation*. 

Agriculture does employ the most people, but trade generates the most value. 

After the Mughals, there was relative stability in Delhi and trade flourished. By 1600 AD, as many as FOUR East India companies had been incorporated in Europe because Europeans were sick of how much money they were having to pay to India for their needs - Dutch, Portugese, French, and British East India companies. 

India did not just know how to make great stuff. We also knew how to sell it profitably. 

Even today, mercantile trade in the form of family business contributes to the bulk of our secondary sector GDP. 

And that is why, Indians will find their way back to entrepreneurship. We may have eliminated it from our education, but we have it in our homes. 

I think we underestimate the importance of historical legacy when we talk about India becoming the fastest growing startup nation of the world. As soon as the ecosystem was created and favourable conditions provided, we soared. Including the 100 bright young minds who submitted their entries to this national startup contest for students. As one of the speakers said - "If this is how the young minds of today are thinking, I know that our future is in safe hands. This country will progress." 

*Trade relations of SIVC with other contemporary civilisations are well documented. My hypothesis on the seals is that these were mercantile seals with codes instead of actual text. The code would include things like source(name and location of merchant, much like brands today), type of product, grade/quality of product, and potentially, the units carried. Most of these seals can be imprinted upon another surface, much like lac seals used even today by Marwadi marchants. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0UlCatC1e4

Here is another person who shares the same hypothesis: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8qA6sSXNts

Here are some estimates: 

https://www.businesstoday.in/opinion/interviews/story/family-businesses-contribute-over-70-to-india-gdp-says-farhad-forbes-of-family-business-network-225943-2019-09-09

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/india-ranks-3rd-globally-in-terms-of-number-of-family-owned-businesses/articleshow/65807479.cms

https://www.forbesindia.com/special-report/indias-family-businesses/1617/1

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041770/india-business-structure-family-businesses-by-type/