Reorganisations - the last refuge of the incompetent

There is one ritual that happens in all companies periodically without fail - an organisation restructuring. Old structures and divisions are thrown out of the window and new structures are announced. HR types take great pleasure in redrawing organisation charts, rewriting job descriptions and the like. Communication types have an orgasm designing communication packs and writing words like "restructuring to stimulate growth", "bringing the organisation closer to consumers" and such other waffle. CEOs like to stand up to the press and announce the change , to make up for lack of anything else to say about their companies. MIcrosoft did just that today, the trigger for this post. Steve Ballmer's version of the blah blah is "We are ready to take Microsoft in bold new directions". Balderdash. I have never seen a more futile activity than an organisation rejig. And yet companies do it all the time.

The pattern is all too predictable. If the current organisation is based on product lines, it will be made regional to "get closer to the consumers". If it is regional, it will be made based on product lines to globalise and take advantage of scale. People will be moved around in boxes on organisation charts. The new guys have to go on a round the world trip to familiarise themselves with their new responsibilities. Lots of presentations and power point charts. Every four years or so the charade is repeated.  None of this matters one iota to consumers and shareholders. The only gainers are probably the management consultants who make lots of money.

What a thorough waste of time and effort. Structures are important in organisations, but they matter less than you think. The primal instinct of marking territories and defending against invaders, is what structures are. Structures are boundaries where defences are erected , by petty minded egoistic manages who need to feel important. Much effort is actually expended in organisations in crossing structural boundaries. Seasoned operators build alliances and have informal channels through which they get things done.Formal structures matter little to the determined go getter.

The root of the problem is man's territorial instinct. Man likes to draw boundaries and defend everybody inside the boundary from everybody outside. Alpha males who inhabit the business world suffer from an acute affliction of this instinct. Chief Executives and Boards struggle to overcome this and get the entire organisation to operate seamlessly. Fat chance of that happening. In this quest, organisational restructuring is the placebo. The placebo is particularly touted by the HR function, as a magic cure, which gullible CEOs swallow all to easily.

If Microsoft's leaders think they can solve their fundamental problems and compete better with the likes of Google, by an organisational revamp, well, perhaps its time to write their obituary.

Tax evasion is a crime. Tax avoidance is a .... ?

In the good old days, this was an easy cliche. Tax evasion (breaking the law) was a crime. Tax avoidance (minimising paying the tax within the law) was something you were duty bound to do. Whether you are an individual, company, whatever. Period. Now it isn't so clear cut an answer.  And that says something about our times.

Witness the case of Apple. It does aggressive tax planning (all within the law). It has a big subsidiary in Ireland and has done a deal with the government there for a low tax rate. It does not bring overseas profits into the US, because it is double taxed then; so it leaves all its overseas profits overseas. All very legitimate. And yet there has been a huge outcry and a Congressional hearing where Apple is accused of not paying "its fair share of taxes".

Similar accusations are levied on Amazon, Google and Starbucks in the UK and indeed in many other countries. Nowhere are the authorities claiming they broke the law. They are just angry that these companies pay a low or zero tax despite large businesses in those countries.

From a public's point of view, there is no difference between evasion and avoidance. The expectation is that all companies must pay lots of taxes irrespective of the law and facts. Equally all rich people must pay big amounts of tax even if the law does not require them to do so. But for each individual himself, it is perfectly OK to evade tax (breaking the law). Queer set of values.

Almost everybody in India breaks the law when it comes to taxes. And before you protest too much, please answer if you have disclosed your savings bank interest as income in your tax return and if you have done no cash transactions above Rs 10,000. The less said about professions like lawyers, doctors and the like, the better. The salaried class is one of the worst offenders - their salaries are caught by the taxman under the withholding tax regime. Everything else, in the eyes of the salaried man or woman is not to be disclosed as after all they are paying "lots of tax" on their salaries.

Why does this work like that. Why is it OK for us to evade tax, but not for others even to avoid it. Is it just pure jealousy against the rich ? Is it just one law for everybody else and one law for us ? What is going on ?

For corporates and rich individuals, there is an expectation of  social responsibility at play here. It is not enough to follow the law. It is now required to be seen as "being fair to society" everywhere. This is a woolly concept ; after all what is the concept of fair.  But each company has to make its own "contract" with society. The more successful you are, the more demanding the contract.

Social responsibility has gotten an altogether new meaning, A far more challenging meaning. Companies have to be seen as "good citizens, whatever that means. Notice that the public's definition of a good citizen is "I break the law, but you shall do over and above the law". "

Its a tough world out there.

Alibaba and the Fourteen Years

Which is the biggest ecommerce company in the world ? Take a guess. Amazon ? E Bay ? You would be wrong if you guessed either of them. The biggest e commerce company in the world is Alibaba. Its portals handled a sales volume of some $ 170 bn. That is more than the volumes handled by Amazon and E Bay combined.

No, this is not some elaborate hoax dreamed up from 1001 Nights. Alibaba is indeed the largest e commerce company in the world. The reason you may have never heard about it is that it operates almost exclusively in China. It started life as simply Alibaba.com , a business to business portal. It then added Taobao - a consumer to consumer portal, whose similarity to E Bay is, of course, entirely coincidental. Now it has started Tmall, a business to consumer portal, which again, bears a completely coincidental similarity to Amazon. All this in just fourteen years. The last two, if you click on the link, you will see are entirely in Chinese. And therein lies the issue. Can Alibaba really be a global major, while being largely only in China.

One of the trends you may have not noticed is that China has overtaken the US as the largest ecommerce market in the world. Chinese love to shop. And they are merrily shopping online. There is terrific internet penetration in China. And Alibaba, thanks to its visionary founder, Jack Ma, is reaping the rewards.

But then, can it be really the dominant player in the world ? I can't see shoppers of virtually any other country migrating to Taobao or TMall, even if it is in English.  "Open Sesame" worked for the fictional Alibaba, but its hard to see the doors opening that easily for the real Alibaba. There is a huge brand image problem to be overcome, not just of Alibaba, but even of China. As Huawei and a clutch of Chinese companies have discovered, it is not easy going global.

Even in the home market, Alibaba's position will surely be under threat from competition. However big the Chinese market may grow into, its hard to see any company being the world's dominant major, being exclusively in China. As Britain discovered a century ago and the US is discovering now, the sun does set on everybody who thinks he alone can dominate the world.

What of the supposedly more tech savvy India. India does not even have a pipsqueak of an ecommerce company. Why ? The blame for that is squarely on Ramamritham. He has made internet connectivity one of the most difficult things in India to obtain. He has virtually made impossible an Internet Cafe industry. He does not allow easy payment systems to emerge. He goes after those who try, like Flipkart,  and brings his full attention on them by lodging all sorts of cases. And he does not allow the global majors to come in.

And therein also lies the risk for Alibaba. Thus far, the Chinese equivalent of Ramamritham , Li Xiao has left them alone. But then Li Xiao is not a bureaucrat. Li Xiao is from the Party. Ramamritham is completely predictable - he will create every obstacle possible, but do nothing else. Li Xiao is entirely unpredictable. If Alibaba attracts political attention, then its fate is sealed.That's probably why the wily Jack Ma is stepping down as CEO. And he is planning an IPO. An IPO that might even best the Facebook IPO.

Why do smart people do stupid things

There's something about the corporate world that makes smart and decent people do incredibly stupid things. Maybe its the anonymity of being part of a company. Maybe its the pressure generated to perform. Maybe its the brutal focus on the ends and not the means. Don't know what .

Why else would some British honcho in Sony decide to raise the price of Whitney Houston's albums on her tragic death. There was surely going to be a memorial upsurge in sales of her records. But what sort of a decision is that to raise the prices then ? Predictably there was a huge outcry; Sony had to back down and I'm sure the guy who did it has egg on his face.

Similar is the decision by some Starbucks Manager near the World Trade Centre to raise the prices of water on that fateful day in 2001. Or the decision by the Chairmen of the auto giants to fly by private jet to Washington to plead with Congress for a bailout. Or the insistence by Jack Welch to award himself retirement benefits that included an apartment in New York and free food and wine - chicken&^%$ in comparison to his personal wealth.

Why does this happen. Unfortunately  corporate environments seem to be dangerous grounds where a decent person's normal human values have every risk of being left at the door. Perhaps there is something dehumanising about the seemingly dog eat dog environment. Perhaps people are blinkered, or even blinded, by the single minded focus on the rat race.

There is a lesson for us all here. Every action we take must be viewed through the prism of two criteria - will we squirm with embarassment if the decision were to be dissected on Breakfast TV or come in the front page of the newspaper. And secondly would we squirm if we have to explain it in the barest detail to our mothers.

In defence of business

The word business is nowadays accompanied by a metaphorical holding of the nose. Post the financial crisis, businessmen would probably rank just above bankers and below more traditional last placers like real estate agents, in the list of reputable professions. Readers of this blog would know that the author is a staunch defender of business and advocates the view that the profession is unfairly maligned. An earlier post had touched on this subject.

It was gratifying to read The Economist’s Schumpeter column, The Silence of Mammon, which argues that business people should stand up for themselves. The article recounts the two arguments it says proponents have put forth in defence of business – that many firms are devoted to good works and that businessmen have done more than any other institution to advance prosperity. It opines that these are not enough and puts forth three more arguments to counter the critics of business who have dominated the discussion on corporate morality – that business is a remarkable exercise in cooperation, that business is an exercise in creativity and that business helps maintain political pluralism. All excellent arguments, in an eminently readable article.

I wade into this debate with unbridled enthusiasm. I have little sympathy for those who taint businesses as immoral with a broad brush. At the cost of oversimplifying a complex matter, I set out a central theme in defence of business and industry.

I come from a poor country, India, and now live in another one, China . I have seen how degrading poverty is to humanity. And it is China that I want to present in defence of business. In 1981, 84% of China’s population of a billion plus was below the poverty line of $1.25 a day. In 2005, in the same China, the percentage of population below the same poverty line had decline to just 16% (source : World Bank working paper 5090). Yes SIXTEEN per cent. That equals to 700 million people who have climbed above the poverty line. We all know how this was done.

Show me any other way of pulling 700 million people out of poverty and I’ll abandon all defence of business.

About wealth in China & India

The ten most valuable companies (in terms of market capitalization) are
(see my separate post on this here)

1. PetroChina (China)
2. Exxon Mobil (US)
3. Ind & Comm Bank of China (China)
4. China Mobile (China)
5. Microsoft (US)
6. Wal-Mart (US)
7. China Constr Bank (China)
8. Johnson & Johnson (US)
9. Proctor & Gamble (US)
10. Royal Dutch Shell (UK/NL)

Now look at the list of the ten wealthiest persons in the world (Source Wikipedia)

1. Bill Gates (US)
2. Warren Buffett (US)
3. Carlos Slim (Mexico)
4. Larry Ellison (US)
5. Ingvar Kamprad (Sweden)
6. Karl Albrecht (Germany)
7. Mukesh Ambani (India)
8. Lakshmi Mittal (India)
9. Theo Albrecht (Germany)
10. Amancio Ortega (Spain)

These two lists say something about China, and India.

China dominates the first list; a sign of the times. However it is completely absent from the second list , upto the Top 100 ! India does not figure in the first list anywhere, even in the top 100. But a number of Indians are on the second 100 list. Some readings from this

- Most of China’s business remain predominantly state owned. Conventional wisdom states that state ownership of business rarely succeeds. China has proved over the last 20 years that it is a shining exception

- In China its OK to be rich. But its not OK to be stinkingly rich ! For being super rich means accumulating power, which is a no no in China

- In India its not OK to be rich. But its OK to be stunningly rich. It’s a paradox, which is hard to understand

- India is growing largely by individual initiative. China is growing largely by state intervention. A sweeping statement that is riddled with holes, but broadly true

- Disparity of wealth, while existing is both countries, is less in China than in India. Average is higher, but extremes are lower in China

- There are, of course, very wealthy people in China. But they tend to hide their wealth; not flaunt it.

As a complete aside, I am amazed to see only 2 Japanese in the top 100 wealthy people. Even more than the rise of China, what amazes me is the decline of Japan. For those who predict endless growth of China, perhaps this is a sobering thought. In the 70s and 80s, Japan could do no wrong. Look where it is now.

The world's largest companies

Which is the world’s largest company by market capitalisation now ? No don’t look – just guess.

Lists of the worlds most valuable companies, largest by sales, etc etc are always dodgy – they rarely represent the truest picture as there are simply too many factors that aren’t common around the world for such comparisons. And they change all the time. But the latest list does produce some telling commentary on the way the world is headed.

This is the top 10 in terms of market capitalization as of last week (Source : Bloomberg)

1. PetroChina (China)
2. Exxon Mobil (US)
3. Ind & Comm Bank of China (China)
4. China Mobile (China)
5. Microsoft (US)
6. Wal-Mart (US)
7. China Constr Bank (China)
8. Johnson &Johnson (US)
9. Proctor & Gamble (US)
10. Royal Dutch Shell (UK/NL)

The obvious thing that stares in the face is the appearance of China at the top half of the table. Granted, the stock exchanges there have gone wildly up, with every indication of another bubble, that the government still owns most of the shareholdings in these companies with the free floating stock only a small percentage. But still ….. Did I hear somebody say G2 ?

The other obvious stunner is the disappearance of the Japanese companies. The first Japanese entry is Toyota at 25. There was a period when the majority in the Top 10 was Japanese.

But this list hides the truly biggest company in the world. By any yardstick it will be way ahead of the others. It doesn’t feature on any list because it publishes no numbers - doesn’t have to, because its state owned. But in terms of size, it’s a giant that will make the others in this list look like pygmies. It is estimated to be some 20 times the size of Exxon Mobil, number 2 in the list above, in terms of output.

The largest company in the world, on most measures, has to be Saudi Aramco.