Discontinuities and Corruption

- and putting the goal-post where the ball is

Often when the regime changes, specifically for a company, there is supposed to be a process of handover. If there isn't much of that, it's assumed to be a time to start with a clean slate. What is interesting is that it's also a time for the most common and the easiest kind of corruption - being insincere with your work.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying humans are corrupt when they get a chance - I'm only, for now, saying that it is a possibility. Humans are known to optimize.

When you take over a new position at a new company, you'll rely on the existing employees, juniors and peers, to give you background. Some times there are too many changes in a short while in companies. Sometimes a few exits snowball into an avalanche. It is common to assume the ship is sinking when mice are seen jumping ship. And at those rare occasions, legacy is in the custody of very few people. Those few people can change the history if they want. It gets even more complex when the previous leadership is not contactable or hostile and no longer interested in your welfare.

What that leads to is an interesting phenomenon that I have heard mentioned across companies. The goal post can move now - to where the ball ends up. If profits are down and turnovers are high, you'd be told that's exactly what we set out to do. If an irrational decision was taken, it was taken by the previous leadership. People will come to you mentioning past promises made to them of promotions and raises.

Most new leaders pass - there's so much more to be done in the initial few months that the archaeology can wait. Some dig in only to get trapped in the mud of conflicting versions and unclear evidence. No one wants to start off doubting peers and juniors. I'm still wondering what is the best thing to do, and how....

How do you fight a suicide bomber?

There’s a term called asymmetric warfare that is commonly used for terrorism. One party in this war (the Government) has to secure all vulnerable points to win, while the other (the Terrorist) has to penetrate just one to win. Naturally, in most cases, the terrorist wins. It is just so much easier.

Of late, I’ve been wondering if we should worry about another similar, though not same, problem. How do you fight competition that wants to blow itself up? You come to the meeting armed with logic, profit and loss, analytics; while this other guy just parts his jacket to show you a string of bombs strapped to his belly. This kind of competition is not rational, or maybe is, but not in your conventional sense. You seek victory while he seeks martyrdom. You seek P&L while he seeks valuation. He’s happy showing a 200% rise in traffic even if he can’t sustain it beyond the year because he hopes to sell some stake within the year (aside, I know the offline guys are giggling here, guess how much traffic we can build at our stores if we sell at a loss :D). Worst, our suicide-bomber will spend till the consumers are so drunk on a cocktail of discounts, cash-on-delivery, coupons, no-questions-unlimited-returns and a variety of unknown ingredients that any rational person can’t persuade them to listen to anything sensible. 

What is worse is that your hope of sanity prevailing is faint. When this particular guy runs out of money, the next free-drinks guy walks in, and till there’s even one joker left in the pack, the suicide bombing continues. Even if someone does it sporadically, you’re done. 

Like the Uncle who walks into your house and spoils your kids on ice-cream, now the businesses are left dealing with irrational expectations of spoilt kids. eCommerce consumers would ideally like everything free, next they’d like to be paid to use eCommerce I guess. Soon we’ll have to send chauffeurs to their homes, with iPads encased in soft blue velvet for the users to tap - all for products with negative contributions. 

If Soft-Drink Giants can agree (unofficially, of course) on pricing for 200ml of soda, why can’t we eCommerce guys have some sanity?