An American working in an Indian company - Part 1

I've been in software now for 20 years. Over that time my views on outsourcing have really evolved. For the first few years, I was ambivalent; the issue was largely theoretical; I didn't know anyone using an outsource provider and I didn't know anyone whose job went offshore. Then in 1995, while at HP, I saw my first use of outsourcing. My initial reaction, like many, went from casual curiosity to visceral rejection; I did not like the idea that my profession could be commoditized. Little changed for me until in 2004, when I went back to school for an MBA at MIT. At MIT, they tell you that the experience will change you in ways you do not expect, and this was certainly one that I could not have predicted. While at school, I met more people from more countries than I had previously known in my entire life. The experience, the classes, and the one-on-one discussions made me question my views on globalization to the point that I chose to join an outsourcing company after graduation.

When I started, the CEO walked me through a presentation he had that talked about the cultural differences between Indians and Americans. The presentation was developed from the Indian perspective for Indians to understand Americans and I remember thinking how novel that was. It was like looking through someone else's eyes. I had to open my mind a bit to take it in and it has stuck with me ever since. Over the last 4 years, I've used his presentation as a reference to help better understanding the people I work with.

It turns out that the presentation was a summary of the work done by Geert Hofstede. The presentation I saw talked about four categories of cultural differences but I'll extend this to the five categories that Hofstede now uses. These include Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance and Long Term Orientation. There is a lot to this, so I'll break it into a few posts and start with Power Distance.

Power Distance refers to the unequal distribution of power in society and how people feel about the inequality that it creates. The index is measured on a scale from 1 to 100 and India scored a 77 while the US scored a 40 highlighting a significant difference between the two societies. The caste system, strong paternalism, and the autocratic nature of the Indian society creates massive swings between the haves and the have-nots and it has for thousands of years.

My take on this is that the caste system provides a level playing field within a caste, and creates a natural division of labor between castes. Indian's perceive people of a different caste as inherently different and therefore support the notion that the inequality that the hierarchy creates is a good thing. When visiting India for the first time, I was surprised by the number of poor 'untouchables' living in squalor throughout the city. What amazed me more was when I learned that many of these people were servants, janitors, grounds crew and peons within companies like mine. By day they work in the office as unseen helpers and at night, they live in squalor. Most everyone in the office has a cook, a maid and potentially a driver, and these people are from the lowest (or below the lowest) caste. I can remember giving my left over Rupees to an old woman in front of the office who was sweeping the sidewalk. It couldn't have been more than $10. I was with a friend from the office and he looked bewildered and asked if I was trying to get her killed? I was surprised by how caring this guy could be in the office, and yet how little he could feel for this woman, but of course, he's lived there his whole life and this is the social norm. I was the one looking at it from a different view point.

Being raised in a hierarchical society also means that personal rank within the organization is very important. Seniority within the company and years of experience in your field really matter (think paternal). There is a natural assumption that you'll get more money and more recognition from tenure than contribution. The staff constantly compares their title and salary to their peers. They know where they rank on tenure and experience and they expect their salary and title to reflect this. To compensate for this you need to have a lot of titles. We had13 positions between a Fresher and a Vice President of Technology. Rewarding personal achievement in this kind of environment can be a real challenge. In the US you might give a raise to an employee for personal achievement. In India, when you do this, everyone finds out and you have to readjust all the salaries or face a mutiny for you've violated their cultural norm.

India is also very paternalistic; children are raised to be very obedient and to revere their parents. Talk to anyone from India and you can easily sense this when talking about their parents; they hold them in such high regard they can’t help but brag. Similarly, teachers are thought of very highly. Rather than focus on independent thought, they teach conformity; adherence to collective wisdom. These two factors really influence management within an Indian company. Managers act both autocratically and paternalistically. They feel it is their job to be the benevolent decision makers. They are responsible for the staff and therefore they will make the decisions for them. The staff, on the other hand, is very reluctant to disagree or challenge their supervisors. This creates real challenges. For example, I can remember seeing obvious mistakes in an important spreadsheet that was put together by a senior executive. Though the mistakes were innocent, they changed the results by an order of magnitude and the finance team never questioned them. They assumed the exec had more knowledge about the matter and therefore didn't think that they should question the numbers. The important takeaway here is that you really have to encourage the staff to think independently and to question and challenge leadership if they feel they could be wrong. You have to go out of your way to make sure people speak up for their natural tendency will be to remain quite.

Another side affect of the high esteem for teachers is that in India, being micromanagement is thought of in a positive way, rather than the negative way it is seen in the US. The one-on-one time is seen as a reward, like when a teacher spends extra time with the best students. The flip side of this is that without a strong sense of independent thought, and with a preference toward micromanagement, projects management and customer collaboration from the US have to rely on frequent communication and oversight; never worry about over communicating.

So the takeaways here should be that we are very different as a society in our tolerance for inequality. In the US we feel people are relatively equal and India they feel people are vastly different. In the US, managers look for support from their reports, and expect pushback from the staff when they are wrong. In India, managers are the decision makers and the staff is very reluctant to question them. Micromanagement in the US is seen as a negative and in India it is seen as a positive. To be successful, you can't assume your American viewpoint is correct, you have to assume it is simply different and accept the India culture. If you assume they will eventually conform to your ways, you'll be in for long, failed experience. If you try to understand that there are fundamental difference in our history and our upbringing, and you use this knowledge to collaborate, you'll find success.

I've seen a good reference to Geert Hofstede's work is at Clearly Cultural.