[yummyfajitas]

If it is your assumption that every firm/organization in India follows nepotism and doesn't value true merit, it would be simply a wrong assumption...

If you read my post, you'd clearly see that I don't believe every local firm does this: "...I mean both western companies and local companies like Reliance/Infosys..."

My belief, based on my experiences living here, is that this is far more common than in the US, Canada or UK. Admittedly, my experiences are biased - I spend most of my time in bigger cities, and in IT circles. So if you want to claim that your experience disagrees, all we have is our own dueling personal experiences (unless you know where to get data on this). Do you claim I'm wrong on this point?

'Managing by output' isn't really a copyright of the West...

Using the term "western" brought up unnecessary emotional baggage and was not strictly correct. I should have used a different term, perhaps "modern" or "MNC-style" (I think economists have a precise term for it, but I forget what it is).

I have no idea what the relevance of mortgage underwriting standards is, but I think you might be arguing against some claims that I didn't make. I'm not asserting some sort of vague cultural/moral/racial superiority.

I'm claiming that certain modern business practices are not widely used here, but are common in the west[1]. And I'm claiming India will be a better (i.e. richer, happier) place when it adopts them more widely. This is no different than coming up with a list of plumbing devices and saying that they will benefit India's water supply when they are more commonly used. The only difference between business practices and plumbing devices is that business is a bit more abstract - as a result, I didn't even recognize it until someone carefully explained it to me after the fact.

[1] And I've stated elsewhere that they are not as common as they should be, even in the west. For all Michael O. Church likes to rant about it, VC-istan is a lot better than many other parts of the US.

[pekru]

> I mean both western companies and local companies like Reliance/Infosys...

Just adding another note, on the firms you mentioned.

Reliance, is a known to be a crooked player that uses non-ethical business practices and is a major crony-capitalist player. Modern business practice followed: profit at any cost.

Infosys, on the other hand, isn't ethically/morally corrupt and is actually known for setting standards in corporate governance. But these days, it seems to have lost the game and run into troubles by fanatically adhering to the "maximize shareholder value while minimizing risk" rule. Modern business practice followed: keep shareholders happy no matter what.

Both followed 'modern business practices' too much to the word, or so it seems.

[pekru]

> you'd clearly see that I don't believe every local firm does this

Yes. I clearly see the original comment seems to infer that most of the (or almost every!?) local firms in India does that.

> Do you claim I'm wrong on this point?

To an extent, yes. India and Indian industry/economy is not just IT and not just big cities. There's a lot more to it. I would be most honored if I get a chance to show some of it first hand, if at all our paths cross in life and we get to meet in the real world, outside of these digital confines.

> I'm not asserting some sort of vague cultural/moral/racial superiority.

Pardon me, but the original comment indeed seems to mention that the "western style management and work culture" is morally superior to the local one.

> I'm claiming that certain modern business practices are not widely used here, but are common in the west[1]. And I'm claiming India will be a better (i.e. richer, happier) place when it adopts them more widely.

Yes, agreed. But one can rest assured that better practices are being adopted at a much better pace here, because developing economies are already resource constrained and thus they are forced to come up with best practices to maximize value extraction from a given set of resources. ISRO and recent Mars mission was big news already. I believe business practices always have locality as a dimensional factor associated with them for their applicability and relevance. (HSBC ad about local knowledge comes to my mind)

[jbooth]

You're being really uncharitable towards yummyfajitas here. I think if you were to give him the benefit of the doubt rather than trying to take the worst possible interpretation of his words at every turn, you could have a more productive conversation. He didn't respond to you by accusing you of favoring the caste system -- why are you accusing him of, first, racism, then favoring only crony capitalism?

I have several Indian friends who've expressed approximately the sentiments that he did about the average Indian business, specifically very hierarchical management compared to American culture, which is indeed problematic in settings of knowledge workers -- you don't manage them the way you manage an assembly line. Heck, you shouldn't even manage an assembly line that way, the line workers know the equipment better than you do. You can disagree with him and them without accusing people of racism or blaming them for the East India Company.

[pekru]

> accusing him of, first, racism, then favoring only crony capitalism

Well, am quite sure all of us here are quite reasonable folks who do not harbour racist feelings towards another fellow man. The very fact that Yummyfajitas chose to come here and run a company stands testament to the fact that he isn't racist at all and is a very reasonable person. And if I sounded like I was trying to load a bundle of (unreasonable) guilt onto yummyfajitas, I humbly beg for forgiveness.

The only question was about "modern business practices" and "oriental (right word!?)/third world business practices". Even before we discuss this, we might have to consider the concept of success from angles, 'modern' and otherwise. If the definition/concept/understanding of 'success' differs, then most certainly the guidelines to be followed to achieve 'success' would differ, don't they?

Modern economics states "free market", "profit", "shareholder value" and people who pursue these and achieve them are termed successful. These might work for the modern and fully developed societies where 'scarcity' takes a totally different meaning. But these same things will have a totally different impact in third world countries when adopted without changing them to suit the socio-economic needs locally.

Treating low skill commodity workers as human beings on the same social level as yourself is such a good practice.

Yes. Can we summarize this as "do not expect others to be obligated to be subservient to you, irrespective of their designation/background/abilities"? If so, can we extend the same to the context where a developed nation forces a developing nation to sign a treaty (and threatening sanctions if otherwise), expecting the developing nation to act subservient to the powerful one? If this is wrong, then the 'practice' is nothing but 'anything that suits us based on the situation'. (well, this would become a totally different post altogether, let me not digress too further)

> blaming them for the East India Company

Well, that is past. I would not hold accountable/accuse the present day westerners for the Raj and all of our present day miseries here. It would be incredibly foolish of me. At the same time, I would find it difficult to believe the idea that everything that's worked elsewhere will work here as well and bring upliftment and social development. That is all.