Monday, October 27, 2025
The Paradox of Indians - love govt jobs but hate govt
If you talk to an average tax paying India, chances are that they do not use any govt. services. Their children go to a pvt school. They go to pvt hospitals. They do not use the state bus service. But most of them are very eager to get a govt. job for their progeny. In fact they will push their children to spend mind-boggling effort and the prime years of their life to 'cracking' a govt exam. In the dowry market (such things still exist), the value of the dowry increases significantly if the groom has a 'sarkari naukri'. So this is dichotomous. Sarkari is usually a word reserved for low-quality, poor-service and a laid-back attitude. But add 'Naukri' to that word and most will say it is the best thing in the world.
The reasons are not difficult to fathom.
1. A sarkari Naukri gives 'izzat'. Read that as the ability to boss around people. The state is still very powerful and any job that gives you the 'power' over people is coveted. The rules are such that no entity can every hope to be 100% compliant and you can always find something amiss. You can be a petty functionary say in the labour department but you have the power to summon the CHRO of a large private company. You can be a police constable and walk into any restaurant and have the owner offer you a complimentary meal. So this insane power given by the structure of our govt, laws and the arbitrary discretion it puts in the hand of petty govt functionaries not only gives you a sense of "power" but the ability of your parents and relatives to brag about to others.
2. You can never be fired for performance - unless you are completely mired in corruption which is (rarely) discovered, you cannot be let go. You can be sent to difficult postings in insalubrious places but no one can fire you. You can report to office at 11.30 AM and not return after lunch but no one will bother about your 'attendance' and performance. Yes your annual confidential report will be written but that has hardly any bearing on your salary. Keeping the right decision makers happy will accelerate your career but broadly everyone has to wait their turn at a promotion. The increments are fixed and determined by the wage tribunals or finance commissions. If the party in power wants to score a few political points, you will get your DA increases on time every year.
3. You will have a pension and medical for life : This is one the best perks of a govt job. Unlike a private sector employee, you will never have to build a retirement corpus. You get a % of your last drawn salary. Of course, there was the NPS and now the UPS which at least links some part of your pension to the market but given a choice you will choose a guaranteed sum of money for LIFE. You will also get huge subsidies in hospital for yourself and your family forever. Imagine a life free of retirement planning or medical insurance premiums.
4. The opportunity to make ill-gotten gains - this is I believe the most important part. While corruption at the very top might have lessened, it is certainly rampant at the lower levels. The 1000 Rs slipped to a clerk. The note given to a policeman are things that we do not even bat an eyelid. Also, all this income is tax free and if you give the right share up the chain, chances are you will be shielded.
5. Last but not least things like accommodation will be provided in most cases. You will never have to negotiate with overbearing landlords, insane deposits and the constant fear of being kicked-out at short notice.
So, while a sarkari office will rarely give you a swanky office, engagement with a good manager or meaning (barring if you are an IAS where your decisions affect a district of millions), but you are pretty much set for life. What's not to love for so little work and accountability. Proves theory X in some ways.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
The missed opportunity of Tanu Weds Manu returns
1. That once you are married, there is love 'hidden' somewhere beneath all the tumult. That the phnomenon of 'growing out of love' does not exist.
2. On a sub-conscious level it tells woman that the one who is self-sufficient, and who has made a life with confidence and is independent will not be "accepted". That the rebel has to bow down to the usual cautions that come with 'love' marriages.
I cannot forget the lines between Tanu and Kusum where Kusum has her say. Her dialogues about financial independence, taking responsibilities in life and not feeling entitled are the stuff of legend. Was so inspired listening to them.
Also the character of Manu is writ with the inability to take a stand. Give marriage your best shot but have the courage to walk away if things are not working out. His last-minute sucummbing to 'there must be love somehere' does not get him any sympathies.
While this was a great movie otherwise, what would have taken it to the next level would have been if Manu and Kusum would have got married. Perhaps it would have inspired a few to swim against the tide.
Tuesday, June 03, 2014
Is Sexual Objectification Bad
Credit : Navin Kumar
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Psychology Insights
1. Cognitive Dissonance : People feel tension in holding two contradicting views in their mind. They try to reduce this tension by rationalising.
Example 1 : the harder it is to gain membership in a group, the more highly the group is valued by the person who is accepted. We convince ourselves we love what has caused us pain in order to feel that the pain was worthwhile.
Example 2 : When people behavee in ways that they are liveky to see as either stupid or immoral they change theiur attitueds to as to believe that their beavious is sensible and justified. (smokers tend to believe that the proof against smoking is inconslusive)
2. Obedience to authority : People generally are obedient to authority. (Shock experiment).
3. The Bystander effect : People do nothing if they believe that someone else will do it. The bigger the size of the crowd, the more will a particular person be motivated to act. Related to social loafing.
4. Attribution : Refers to processes by which we make inferenace about the causes of events in our lives and behaviour of others.
5. The Big Five of Personality :
i) Extraversion : Sociability, activity and interpersonal involvement.
ii) Neuroticism : emotionality, emotional stability and adjustment
iii) Openess to experience : inquiring intellect, intelligence etc.
iv) Agreeableness : trust, altruism, likeability
v) Conscientiousness : dependebility, restrained self-discipline etc.
6. GroupThink : Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. It is a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion.
7. The Abilene paradox is a paradox in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of any of the individuals in the group.It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and, therefore, does not raise objections. A common phrase relating to the Abilene paradox is a desire to not "rock the boat".
8. Locus of control : Circle of influence and circle of control.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Melting Pot ? You bet not
The reason is that in the entire team of 11 people, more than half are of African origin. I believe that the team should be a reflection of the national character. Buying talent, while it perhaps guarantees success, does little to define the national character. And if you think national character is a fuzzy and confused concept, look no further than Japan. They say in Japan that you cannot become a Japanese - you have to be born one. Anyone living in Japan for a significant length of time will find resonance in that view.
Here's an example through a joke.
(Heaven in Europe is a place where the British are the policemen, the French are the cooks, the Germans are the engineers, the Italians are the lovers and the Swiss run the place.
And hell is where the British are the cooks, the French are the engineers, the Germans are the policemen, the Swiss are the lovers and the Italians run the place.)
Basically, if the trend in Europe of immigration continues, then the old Europe Hell-Heaven joke might not be funny in a few decades. Basically i am raising a question on nationality and ethnicity. My point is that barring a few countries like the US, which have no culture to speak of (in the historical sense) every nation is characterized by a ethnic group. That ethnic group might have more progressive values as time goes by but will probably have an enduring set of characteristics that typify them.
And here is the issue. As countries have higher immigration, and the concept of citizenship is more immigration-led rather than being born into an ethnic group, we will find an increased dilution of the national character.
Mind you that does not mean that we are moving to a 'golden mean' as predicated by Pundits. The US did not become a "melting pot", it became a "salad". In an alien land, people don't assimilate but they cling on to their national characteristics more tenaciously than ever.
So the current French football team is a Joke.
Friday, December 04, 2009
What is Fair
should be applied :
1. If there is differntial performance, should the winner be encouraged with rewards and the loser be penalised for his performance
2. A second view is that the winner will anyway take care of themselves and given limited resources, it should be our endeavour to support the loser to help him better his performance.
Which of these two views is more tenable?
In my view, the answer lies in the context of the relationship and the resources available to persue two competing actions (reward winner vs encourage loser). For example, in a business organisation, where resources are limited, the winner gets a bigger piece of the pie and the loser typically is given the go-by.
However, if it is a household when there are two children, who are diffrerent in capabilities (say'winner'and 'loser'), parents will typically encourage the one with lower capability to do better. They will appeal to one with the higher capability to guide the other child and given limited resources will do more for the less capable child.
The question becomes more tricky when say a federal govt is dealing with state governments. A fair distribution plan would entail that the bigger contributor to the kitty get a larger share. However the federal govt. would like to encourage lagging states to do better and hence apportion a larger pool of contributed resources back to the poor-performing states.
This is in effect a subsidy - the better-performing states subsidizing the poor-performing states.
Here, i believe the laffer curve-principle will apply. There is an equilibrium point beyond which there will be diminishing returns. The subsidy should not be large enough for the better-performing states to disincetivise them to do well. However without some kind of 'extra' subsidy there may not be resources to help the poor performing ones.
Balance again seems to be the key to doing this.
Friday, January 04, 2008
HR Insight
Anyway coming back to the employment relationship, i believe, that choosing to take-on or stick to a job is rather like buying a car. How so ? In buying a car we make choices and trade-offs. One cannot have everything in a car; we have to make trade-offs. We cannot have a car in our budget and also have fuel-efficiency, power, legroom, luggage space and also a premium luxury brand. We have to make trade-offs. We can have a better fuel-efficiency but compromise power, we may trade off a premium brand for one more affordable etc. I believe that taking and continuing a job is exactly like that. Making trade-offs. We make unconsious trade-offs about compensation (current or future), benefits, employability, the boss, growth opportunities, marque brands and choices related to our life-stage/mental make-up. Till such time the trade-offs make sense, people stay on in their organisations - otherwise they move on. For example an employee will trade-off higher compensation for a bad boss or will trade-off a marque employer brand on one's CV for lower compensation. They make these choices in the context of their life-stage (young adult, married, married with school-going children) and a function of their own mental make-up (ambitious, life-interest, variety-seeking, self-actualisation). Till the trade-offs are in the zone of tolerace, they stay in an organisation. Sometimes there is an inertia to change too which stops people from quitting and they just enough not to get kicked out of their jobs.
Of course, the above is only valid in a scenario where there are enough employment choices. When bereft of choices, people will do anything to earn their two square meals. Here again the trade-off of remaining hungry and doing a job they hate, hunger triumphs.
So the only thing that organisations should do is to minimise the trade-offs and work on multiple fronts. The key, i believe is to make almost uniform efforts in all directions - perhaps not be the best in any one but make efforts on all fronts specific to the employee demographic they are trying to attract:
- compensation & benefits
- boss (manager sensitivity training)
- growth (lateral growth, fast-track talent identification)
- employability (work content)
Some of the things like life-choices, self-actualisation etc. are not in the control of organisations and they should not be too worried about losing people for those reasons. Also all organisations should not worry about 'attracting the best' talent at all levels. The kind of talent required should be based on their business model. Not all models require the 'best' talent in all levels, notwithstanding Mckinsey's "war of talent". Organisations should take a considered view on which few roles are critical and manage accordingly. People will always take a 'portfolio' approach to their jobs. They will pick-and-choose those aspects that matter to them. Organisations should also do that based on their needs !
