Dear Yuval Noah Harari,

I read your book Sapiens, and became your fan. Your portrayal of our beastly journey is perfect. Then you wrote Homo Deus and it made me quite uneasy.

I liked the way you tried to convince us that we are moving towards Homo deus. You wrote that we no longer worry about famine, plague and war as they are now manageable. We are starting to focus on achieving immortality, happiness and divinity. Being a fan of yours and being fed so much about change that “change is the only permanent thing”, “don’t resist but embrace change” that I reluctantly agreed that we will change to Homo deus.

I went ahead and read further pages. As I read, I started to hate the notion of moving to Homo deus, because you wrote that majority of Homo sapiens will slowly become useless. We will be destroyed by our own created robots, because they will slowly self-learn and become super intelligent.

We are highly egoist, how can we call someone super intelligent? Throughout our history we thrived by raging wars and destroying others.

Covid-19 came and I waited to check its impact against your book’s prediction. It was mentioned that future pandemics will be far less devastating than Spanish flu, which happened a century back. Due to the advancement in medical science we are able to launch vaccines within a year of any pandemic. Yes, vaccine for Covid-19 has come but is still not able to arrest it and has already infected tens of millions of people. Numbers are still rising.

Sadistic pleasure

Statistically, this number is still less than the Spanish flu, but the devastation this pandemic has caused is much more than Spanish flu. You had envisaged pandemics based on natural viruses. But we are Homo sapiens so we tinkered with the virus and caused this pandemic. The sadistic pleasure which we got in subjugating macro organisms has now firmly moved to subjugating micro-organisms. We will continue to tinker in future too in spite of facing more havocs, till we make them subservient. Now micro-organism is our new enemy.

The second half of your book is unnerving. It says that in the near future we will even lose the ability to dream, so I made a point to practice dreaming every night. In one of the dreams your book appeared and I got worried that my great grandchildren will get killed by our own created robots.

Homo sapiens, the programmer of robots, has started to write big programs. Each one of us is biased with our own values, beliefs and preferences. We started to write programs and filled the code with such biases. Within no time we divided robots into capitalists, liberals or communists. Then we started to subdivide them based on colour, creed, caste and religion. This is our traditional religion, not “techno religion” or “data religion” mentioned in the book.

Then we checked the level of biases in robots and tweaked the code to increase it to a level of hostility against each other. By then our dwindling population already started to have minority complex against robots. Homo sapiens decided that it is the right time to exploit their hostility and escalate it to the war level. A world war broke out among robots and before it could slip out of hand, we cunningly put a façade of peace by helping them form “United Sub-nations of Robots”. We gave a few groups of robots a veto power. Homo sapiens were smiling that this would help them to be in a perpetual cold war as no consensus would ever be reached amongst them.

The dream continued to Homo sapiens’ effort to subjugate micro-organisms causing many waves of pandemic, making every Homo sapien live in self-quarantine for longer periods. Their insatiable sexual needs being fulfilled by robots. Oh no, Homo sapiens started getting bored with the same robot and are eyeing neighbours’ ones. Sexual harassment of robots by Homo sapiens started to pile up.

I started to sweat in my dream and then I saw the true colour of Homo sapiens, which is to provide lip service. They immediately formed a robots rights group to protect them from exploitation, but the actual intent was to use this group only as a political tool to further create animosity among robots. Homo sapiens ensured that robots will always be fighting among themselves and will never become powerful to destroy us.

I woke up peacefully. Now I am happily assured that my great grandchildren will continue to live and carry the tradition of divide, kill and rule.

Yours Truly,

Homo sapiens

The writer, a Leadership Coach, is former India and China head of an IT MNC

With China’s Huawei out due to security concerns, India must be careful which countries it pairs with for 5G. Future networks shouldn’t face the possibility of restriction or overhaul

The first time I heard about Huawei was in 1995, when I was working in San Francisco bay area. It was described as a Chinese company that was making routers by stealing software code from Cisco. There was no way for me to verify the veracity of that comment. Now, according to an Omdia report, Huawei routers have earned top spot in global carrier market in 2019. Quickly after 1995, Huawei started to diversify its portfolio and added optical transport and switching equipment to its kitty. By 2010, it approached US telecom service providers with its offerings. Cash-starved service providers were not impressed with Huawei’s products but couldn’t say no to its attractive offer.

The US equipment manufacturers suddenly woke up to Huawei’s existence when they started losing deals in their home country. I was heading the India centre of one such company. Industry lobbied and in 2012, the US government put restrictions on Huawei. The European Union did not follow the US, and continues to work with Huawei till date. Now, Huawei not only provides full end-to-end networking solutions, but has also entered into consumer electronics with its own operating system.

Broadly speaking, 1G and 2G come in the first category of mobile technology evolution. In the second category come 3G and 4G, while 5G is a paradigm shift. Politics around technology started to surface around the time of 3G, as our lives started to get more wired with technology. The ongoing 5G political debate is no less than a war. Every government is using the tech sector as a pillar for their foreign policy. China is aggressively pushing for Huawei, as technological dominance would be a big help to its dream of world dominance.

Issues with Huawei

Two things are frequently discussed about Huawei: security issues and lower cost.

In 3G or 4G networks, my Bengaluru team could troubleshoot any issue happening in our company’s installed network across the world. Someone collects the data log at the installation site and transfers it, or it is accessed by logging in remotely. All network equipment providers, including Huawei, do the same for their own equipment. In a less complex network, centralised and localised data poses less security risk. During later stages, a new trend emerged to take out intelligence from hardware and push more data towards the cloud. This approach has many advantages, but also has an increased security risk. Data is not localised at a given geography anymore.

With 5G, billions of devices will be connected to the network, leading to massive data generation. This data will reveal a lot about many aspects of the lives of our citizens. Any hacking or malicious usage of the data will have dire consequences.

Therefore, choosing the right vendors for 5G is important. A wrong choice will have a huge impact, and replacing a vendor is cumbersome and expensive. So, trust that a vendor will abide by security norms is paramount. All foreign vendors, including Huawei, will face this trust challenge. The world trusts democratic countries more as they are open, transparent and noisy; China’s Huawei will lose out for such reasons.

Cost is the USP of Huawei, and the reason behind its vast global footprint. Some estimates say that Huawei is around 20 per cent cheaper than other providers. Replacing it will make the network expensive, leading to higher costs to end-users and making service providers non-competitive.

A good portion of the Airtel and Vodafone Idea networks’ traffic passes through Huawei equipment. Reliance Jio, however, does not use Huawei equipment. With its excellent negotiation skills, it was able to bring down other vendor costs to match Huawei. Recently, the US government too praised Reliance Jio for being a “clean” network. So Huawei has now lost this price advantage, too, besides the security trust.

Strategic partnership

If not Huawei, then who?

India has to think strategically for 5G, even if it takes more time to roll out. After a lot of brouhaha, international players have started to accept that for “Make in India”, “Digital India” and “Atmanirbhar Bharat”, they have to partner with Indian entities. Private players are free to partner with any of the non-Huawei vendors. But for the government-owned networks, defence networks and other sensitive networks in India, the decision has to be more political rather than technical.

Geopolitical compulsions sometimes make “veto power” countries stand against India. Restrictions on nuclear fuel, military spare parts and many other things have been imposed on us in the past. As technology is now a powerful political tool, our 5G network components have to be immune to such future restrictions. India should build networks using indigenous products and prefer having strategic partnerships with non-“veto power” countries such as Japan, South Korea, Germany and Scandinavian countries.

The writer is a leadership coach and the former India and China head of an IT MNC

India’s democratic freedoms appeal to the Chinese youth, which is more ambitious and openly critical of its leaders

The famous Chinese classical work Journey to the West ( where “West” refers to India), written during the Ming dynasty, continues to be a hugely popular piece of literature.

It describes Hiuen Tsang’s visit to India in the early Seventh Century. This story is well known in China, and for the Chinese people this is the most popular way to connect with India.

My first interaction with anyone from China was in 1995 in the San Francisco Bay area. Tech revolution had just begun. A new colleague, who was of Chinese descent, commented: “You know IC is not Integrated Circuit, it is actually India-China. You will dominate software and we will dominate hardware, and this is how we will rule the tech industry.” I was surprised by her over-enthusiasm. India had just opened up its economy and the optimism about India’s future was more palpable in the external world than in India itself.

My first visit to China happened more than a decade later in 2009. I visited Beijing where we were setting up our new office. The hired team had trouble with the English language. However, just like any other Asian culture, long hours of hard work and subservience to authority were visible. We visited Xi’an, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Xi’an used to be the ancient capital of the Middle Kingdom. The famous ‘Wild Goose Pagoda’ was built here by Hiuen Tsang upon his return from India; a museum there has original manuscripts in Sanskrit brought by him.

At that time I wrote the following in my travel diary “A strong central government in China, acts fast and is capable of changing the direction of the country in no time. They missed being a superpower in the early 16th Century, when a strong Chinese Navy was suddenly dismantled paving the way for the European dominance and colonisation of the globe thereafter. This time, they appear to have a strong desire to grab the tag of the most powerful nation on the earth at any cost.”

Change in mindset

Fast forward to 2016, and the Beijing office had a different feel. New hires in the last few years spoke flawless English and were confident and ambitious due to their upbringing in the economic growth era. They asked tough questions about the company’s vision and their future. There was a clear divide in the workplace: old versus young, Mandarin versus English, submissive versus aggressive. Interactions with the locals were open and free-flowing, unlike in the past, when they stayed away from any political or controversial discussions. There was a visible social change.

Talking about his teenaged daughter, someone said: “My daughter keeps questioning the government rules regarding our mandatory attendance at certain events. She strongly feels about personal freedom of citizens. It is difficult to deal with such situations as we are conditioned to follow the government orders without questioning.” Another person commented on the rising corruption.

A decade ago, everyone had almost equal status in Communist China, but now people are finding that neighbours who have ordinary government jobs are building bigger houses, buying luxury cars and goods. There was an undercurrent of frustration as a classless society suddenly started to witness class differences, and people were vocal about it.

Current scenario

By 2017, there was a firm mindset that China is a superpower and India is a rising power — but not a threat to China. But Doklam proved antithesis to this belief. One person summed it up well: “(We’ve) never heard that China and India had any problem. Most of our challenges are with the countries in the East. If the Chinese army is so strong then why couldn’t they beat India? Modi is considered a very strong leader in China.”

This ‘superpower intoxication’ among the young people ran into a massive roadblock during Covid-19 times. The Chinese economy started to spiral downwards, unlike anything this generation has ever seen before. This generation’s desire for global dominance is in limbo as the world blames China for the global virus outbreak.

This new generation of Chinese has now put the government on trial and, therefore, Ladakh is one among many shows of muscularity by the Communist government to win their trust back.

This new generation is enraged by their government’s secrecy on Galwan and other such incidents. They think logically, expect transparency and are asking for more individual freedom, with access to free-flowing information. India’s noisy democracy provides all this. Once again, India can use its soft power to connect with the Chinese as it did way back during Hieun Tsang’s time through scriptures and knowledge.

The writer is a leadership coach and the former India and China head of an IT MNC

For the last two decades, the H-1B visa has always been in the news — whether it was the capping of the number of visas or fair pay to the H-1B-visa

There are many people who by the virtue of occupying key positions are called leaders. However, only a handful of them actually exhibit true leadership qualities. So who should be a leader? A leader is a person who has a heart for HR and a mind for business. Many so called leaders possess business acumen and are good in their own domains, but they still are not able to deliver. They are distant, hands-off and emotionally detached from their teams, failing to align the team with the organizational goals.

Let us look into the history of many conquerors who have achieved lofty goals, but ultimately faced miserable, untimely deaths – Julius Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon to name a few. In contrast, Genghis Khan died at home surrounded by his family members and his empire survived many generations with the last ruling descendant, the Emir of Bukhara, remaining in power till the early last century. It is important to look into how an illiterate tribal living in the steppes went on to occupy a vast landmass in twenty-five years, ranging from the Indus River to the Danube, from the Pacific Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea. What Leadership traits did he hone to achieve such a feat and how can these traits be useful to our modern business leaders? It is all about people.

Communicate the Purpose: By 1211 AD, Genghis Khan had united the tribes in Mongolia and formed his kingdom. The Jurched king with his capital at modern day Beijing, demanded the submission of Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan however, decided to wage the war. His army had never crossed the Gobi desert and faced an army many times larger. He knew very well, that people would have doubts over the reason for such a war. He held a public discussion, small group meetings and even met each and every soldier individually to explain why the war was important, even though soldiers are supposed to follow orders without question. He reinforced this message a few times to ensure a complete buy-in. That was the first battle which later opened the whole world for Genghis Khan to conquer.

Organizations do conduct all-hands and send mass mailers to communicate their goals. Larger companies and geographically diverse organizations in particular, are more prone to messages which could be lost either in content or in passion, when they finally reach employees. If the goal is lofty and takes time to achieve, a sustained approach by the leadership team to reinforce the message at every level and an honest update on the progress, could remove doubts in employees\’minds that do crop up during execution. Failing to do so, could result in employees becoming reluctant warriors over time, when chasing organizational goals, and eventually not meeting them.
Transparency in Compensation and Benefits: In those days, after winning any war, the city was looted by the winning army. Any soldier and their superiors kept whatever was found and sometimes fought among themselves for the loot. Genghis Khan introduced a fair and transparent system of distribution of loot based on rank and file following a precise formula. Anyone hiding any loot was punished severely. This avoided any ill will or rivalry among soldiers.
Current organizations operate at various levels of transparency. Some organizations make their bonus plans visible while a few organizations tend to make the salary band of one level higher visible to employees. Organizations are still far from achieving full transparency in compensation. Managers spend a considerable amount of time, in dealing with compensation issues. A good leader should at least define the compensation philosophy and make it public, equipping managers to handle it with utmost care to allay their concerns. A sincere effort by management is always well appreciated.

Culture of learning and trusting: In the initial days, Genghis Khan\’s army had never fought a war to capture any walled city. When he attacked Tangut, a walled city, he exhausted all his options to capture it. He then came up with a unique idea to divert the channel of the Yellow river to flood the city, but instead they flooded their own camp. He saved his troops and improved on these learnings. He forebode remembering any dead or any defeat, instead wanted his army to learn from such events and move on. Unlike other conquerors who made dying on the battlefield an honour, his focus was to save the lives of his soldiers. He won most of his battles even before the first arrow was shot, by creating fear psychoses, propaganda wars and many other tactics.
What type of culture do modern leaders\’ setup? Are risk takers rewarded or they are side-lined, if they fail? Are post-mortems conducted to learn or to lay blame? Does the team march towards a common goal or do individuals pursue their own agendas?

Lead from front: Even in his sixties, Genghis Khan personally led battles irrespective of how far and how long they would take. He did not sit in Mongolia and send his army. How many leaders have the determination to steer their organizations through long painful periods with the focus on execution, by leading from front? How many are hands-on and reach out to employees? Without getting involved, any motivational words from the leader sound hollow. In this era of quarterly uncertainty, only a mentally determined and physically fit leader will be able to handle larger challenges.

While many conquerors have faced revolt within their armies, Genghis Khan faced none due to the unquestioned loyalty he built from within. Loyalty was the key to his success and such loyalty comes only when leaders exhibit the above mentioned traits.

First Published in Silicon India

I was surprised to see all three of them in the same company after 20 years. This excited me to conduct a study of this unique case to analyze how they shaped their careers.

The VP understood his strengths and weaknesses at a very early stage in his career. He knew that he had good technical skills but was not one of the best in the industry. He started investing his time and money in taking up short and long term courses (sometimes sponsored by his company) in soft skills, which he applied well in his team. He was always ready to learn from his mistakes and took feedback with the right attitude. He was promoted as a manager soon. During his management tenure, he started providing more space to technical people who had superior skills, to ensure that the product could be well architected, implemented, and tested. This earned him the tag of ‘great executioner’. His learning did not stop here, he went ahead to build his own library at home with a good collection of management books from which he drew management techniques regularly. The other important aspect was that he joined some social networking forums at an early stage in his career and became well connected in the industry.

The Director, had superb technical skills and was considered by many as an ‘one man army’ and was the most sought after by any manager. Given any problem, however complex it might be, he could solve it with ease. He solved others’ problems too and ensured that the product was of high quality and was released on time. He hardly spent anytime explaining things and grooming others. He was critical of those whom he thought were average performers and thus ultimately ended up building a wall between him and others. Over the years he realized that his soft skills were not good enough to motivate the team towards success were he to start his own startup; though I used to think that he would have been very successful. He decided to grow within the company where he could provide strategic and technical direction to the team and leave the resolution of people management issues to his manager.

The Manager had better technical skills than the VP and better team skills than the Director, but stayed put in the same role. Why? I have always known him as a person who confines his thought to the potentially unfavorable outcomes and was quick to blame others – his boss, peers, or any one in the works or his family – or his ill-luck. I hardly recollect him doing any introspection to understand how he could have done things differently and obtained the desired results. He never identified the aspects for self-improvement and his frustration hindered his growth.

So where does this all lead us to. It is important to assess ones own strengths and weaknesses periodically. Rather than finding faults in others, one needs to grow by developing soft skills in addition to sound technical skills to get the desired results. It is important to understand that soft skills start to play a significant role in one’s career, as one gains experience.

First Published in Silicon India