Having spent 2 days at NILF 2010, I see a more optimistic mood among attendees compared to last year. Companies are seeing the market opening up and there were even allegations that the downturn was hyped up and news on the turnaround was a media opportunity. All in all, 2010 looks to be more promising.

On the sessions front, there were some really good ones. I attended a workshop on Building a learning organization by David Garvin, Prof at HBS and found this very interesting. Will share some of that in a separate post. Another one was by Lynda Gratton from LBS – she was talking about how we need to gear up for the changes in the work environment.  Another good session had Rajiv Bajaj, Chandra of TCS and Paul Hermelin (Group CEO of Capgemini). Rajiv Bajaj had valuable and different perspectives and it is good to bring in people outside the IT industry to share their views – we can learn a lot from other industries for sure.

I notice a lot of country delegations this year including from Colombia, Brazil, Canada, Germany etc – their objective is to make companies aware of the possibilities and invite investments. This is another indicator to be noted.

Finally, Ray Bingham, partner at General Atlantic shared his  perspectives on building a great business. He made a point on Level 5 leadership (refer to Jim Collins’ book – Good to Great). Level 5 leaders are those who get their job quietly done and shun  publicity/attention etc – he gave the example of Mark Hurd and Larry Ellison. Ellison while definitely not a level 5 leader apparently is surrounded by a set of Level 5 leaders who get the job done. Similarly for Apple’s Steve Jobs – the company performed very well when he was sick and away. Something to think about.

Popularity: 11% [?]

As Tom Friedman has said, the world is getting hot, flat and crowded. I’d like to propose that the flatter world spells the end of nationalism.

The concept of nationalism is extremely complex, and one would have to dive into the murky depths of history, going back to prehistoric man, to understand its origins. But here are two indisputable facts. One, nationalism involves the belief that one’s nation (usually associated with some sort of racial or ethnic identity) is of primary importance. Two, nationalism is inherently divisive because the perception of a nation-state with a unity of purpose goes hand in hand with a negative perception of other races and cultures.

Witness the sentiment of Aryan superiority (read national identity) over all others which was a prime reason for the last two world wars. Can there be a better example to bolster the case for ending nationalism once and for all?

Science and technology, immigration and capitalism have united the world to such an extent that (one hopes) national borders will be reduced to mere lines on a map. Isn’t it possible for people to maintain their cultural beliefs and traditions, and yes, even that wholly undefinable yet distinct sense of “my country, my home”, without having to also forge a national identity which is confrontationist? When we can say “We are not Hindus or Muslims or Christians, we are just Indians”, can’t we take this one step ahead and say “We are not Indians or Americans or South Africans, we are just humans” and make the world a better, less fractious place to live in?

Or so we wish. I wish all of the above were true. I wish the Earth was truly a planet without borders. But the reality is that politics is dictated by the burning issues of the age. This era has been characterized by the redrawing of economic battle-lines, the increasing clout of emerging economies, climate change, global recession, and a continuation of the wars for oil, gas and water. In this context, it is highly likely that nations will resort to sabre-rattling jingoistic behaviour to further their interests.

Let me also not forget that nationalism has a long history, dating back to the small nomadic communities at the very beginning of mankind’s sojourn on this planet. An institution such as this, will not die and early (or easy!) death.

The end of nationalism – may remain just an idealistic dream.  

Popularity: 11% [?]

Seldom has a recent news article surprised and baffled me to the extent that a write up in the Times of India did today. The article referred to Climate Change, which is the buzz word every where now. Back in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with the starling prediction that most of the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035. One would assume that considerable research went in before the panel made such starling revelations. As it turns out, the prediction was based on a news story in the New Scientist, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 groundbreaking report. This in turn was based based on an interview given by an obscure Indian scientist, who has since revealed that his claim was mere “speculation”.

The irony here is that the IPCC was set up to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. Incidentally, the same year the panel shared the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore. Fact remains that the IPCC has done a lot of commendable work to deserve such an honor. At the same time, basing reports on such unsubstantiated “facts” will show it in a very bad light.

We at Prayag are constantly engaged in doing research work for various clients, stretching across companies in the IT,ITES, Manufacturing, and other such varied verticals. There are a few golden rules that we strictly adhere to. If we have taken the data from any research report, the source is always mentioned clearly. Whenever the authenticity of the source is questionable, then that data is not used as part of the report. Also, any assumptions that are made are clearly mentioned in the report. And if the correct information has not been obtained for some reason, its best to inform the client, than include ” facts” which would prove to be embarrassing at a later date. The information that is gathered is also verified through multiple channels.

One would image that an organization like the IPCC would take care of such basic requirements. As they say, The Devil Is In The Details. You can ignore it only at your peril.

Popularity: 6% [?]

As the Copenhagen conference kicks off today, it is being billed as the last chance to clinch the real deal to tackle global warming and climate change. While the Kyoto agreement in 1997, was ground breaking in its attempts to tackle the world’s growing concern over climate change, and despite over 200 nations ratifying it, it was doomed from the start without the USA agreeing to any of the clauses.

Now, I personally have never bought into the carbon credit story that was ratified at Kyoto. It’s driven more by economics than anything else, and in no way comparable to actual environmentally sustainable steps such as those involving renewable energy, waste management, etc. Enterprises purchasing carbon credits aren’t doing themselves or anyone a favour for that matter.  At the end of the day, it just boils down to having enough money to pay their way out of being responsible, and being able to proudly declare themselves as “carbon neutral”, through someone else’s hard won efforts – making the whole concept of tackling climate change, a sham.

I came across this brilliant parody of the concept of offsetting carbon neutrals, known as Cheat Neutrals (www.cheatneutral.com), whose premise is that it allows people to “offsets your cheating by funding someone else to be faithful and NOT cheat. This neutralises the pain and unhappy emotion and leaves you with a clear conscience.” As ridiculous as cheating credits sound, it really does makes you pause and draw parallels with the carbon offset concept – and a pretty close one at that too!

So, as the summit curtains rise today, all eyes are on Copenhagen. There’s hope as the world looks on with expectations – Obama is attending Copenhagen en route to his Nobel Peace Prize Award in Oslo (now that’s another story!!), and for once, the US is armed with some emission cut proposals. So, can Obama do it this time? Yes he can! Will he, is another question entirely though!

Popularity: 11% [?]

Chitra Divakaruni’s latest book “Palace of Illusions – Panchaali’s Mahabharat” is a powerful view of the greatest Indian story from Draupadi’s viewpoint. Beginning at her birth from the sacred fire in Drupad’s hall, it traces her struggle against being ‘only a woman’, her chagrin at being married to five men, her secret love for her husbands’ greatest rival and her inexplicable relationship with Krishna. Like Divakaruni’s other books, this one is a woman’s book through and through and shows us what can be achieved if a woman takes a stand.

I am no feminist, but this book brought home to me the power that a woman wields in households. By extension, we are seeing an emergence of that power today within companies as well (what better example of this than Prayag itself which has a majority of women employees – no offense to my male colleagues – and a woman at the helm)?

Women are willing and able to play bigger and more important roles in the economy today. It is time that the society woke up to this fact (having a strong child care system would be a boon for working mothers) and that organizations recognized the potential of this gender. Some companies are already showing the way, allowing women to work part-time, from home or giving them a chance at a second career.

As this trend grows, it will not be surprising to find women changing the face of Indian economy even as Panchaali transfromed the political landscape during her time.

Popularity: 8% [?]

One of the interesting but less mentioned, effects of the recession is the increasing awareness that, post-recession organizations need to focus more on being ‘green’ than they have ever before. Numerous opportunities exist for brands to go green; some of these are despite the recession, while others, funnily enough, are because of it, thanks to the numerous new rules and regulations that have been introduced. All brands need to keep pace with this trend, else they may be left behind when the economy recovers completely. For we now realize that sustainability can be profitable after all. In fact, “four out of five people say they are still buying green products and services today, which sometimes cost more, even in the midst of a US recession.” (Reuters) The ecologically-aware consumer today wants to know how he is contributing to sutainable consumption, and where and how his products are made.

The recession, in some ways, is fuelling (no pun intended) the demand for eco-friendly products, as cash-strapped consumers want to curtail fuel and energy expenses. However, this is at loggerheads with the often pricey eco-products, which have always branded themselves as expensive because they are worth it. So here is a great opportunity for brands to run a repositioning exercise, showing how they are sustainable and yet, affordable for the long-term. Some companies are already doing this. For instance, BMW is repositioning the Mini as cheap to run and eco-friendly. Kohler is marketing a new range of shower heads and faucets that will help families conserve more water. Samsung recently presented its’ Blue Earth mobile phone, a solar-powered phone made from recycled plastic water bottles.

What consumers want today, in the midst of all the dialectic on the environment, is to know how they will benefit from it. So companies need to stop touting how they are going green and building green datacentres and ecological products – what the customer is more concerned with is how this will beneift him, especially financially.

Popularity: 8% [?]