The Individual Contributors and Managers - Indian Software Industry

It has been sometime I am seeing a trend in Indian IT industry (both Indian operations of MNCs as well as Indian companies) to hire more architects. Is this arrangement working out effectively? My belief is, it is not. Here, I present some of my ideas why I believe it is not effective as it can be. A few days back I saw a recruitment advertisement which asked for Software Architects with PMP certification. What is surprising to me is, what an architect is going to do with Project Management certification when there are able project managers associated with the project, or the project managers are not able?

Looking Outward vs. Inward

One major difference between an architect and a manager is the viewpoints. Most architects are supposed to have an outward view of technology. Where the industry is moving technologically and how the organization can maximum benefit from that. While first level managers are supposed to be responsible for the delivery and issues of the project and processes. In reality, most managers do not interact with their reportees often. It ends up architects deciding the schedules, being aware of people issues and many a times getting deep into it and landing up solving the whole issue themselves. While, they should be ideally be spending more time in outward enhancement of the product by comparisons with competitors they involve themselves in nitty-gritty details of the project at every stage.

I think the closest match between an architect in the business paradigm is a product manager. Both have an outward looking role. What can they bring from the environment to organization. While the project management process is more an inward looking role in actually developing the inter strengths in the organization. However, in most organizations at least in India has a dominating inward looking focus which leads to the outward looking role seem dysfunctional. Product managers and architects are known cynics inside the organization while customers and partners look at them as real value drivers. The cynicism of architects and product manager is what makes them take larger stock of the market and design or create something that's beyond the organizations inward capability. A dominating inward force on them will lead to organizational compliance management than building a culture of candor. If you do not have a culture of candor, architects have very little role to play.

Why is this mismatch?

Is your Problem that Difficult?

The most important question to ask here is "Is the Problem that you are trying to solve that hard?" Most of the time it is not. Most of the problems are clearly well defined. I feel many Indian Software Companies cannot even justify their business model being different from the other. The answers I always get is like the old Maggie tomato ketchup ad "It's different". If the problem is not that hard why do you need an outward looking role in technology? At least not hiring is a better option than bringing such a person and asking him to manage projects.

Are we prone to looking Inwards?

One of the classic problem is cultural. Hofstede defined a model for cultural significance in management practices. One factor which is very important as for Hofstede is the concept of "Power Distance". India has a higher power distance than most societies. Here is what it translates to:

High Power Distance

1. Inequality is a fact of life - Everyone has their rightful place.
2. Some are independent, others are dependent.
3. Hierarchy is something that exists and is accepted.
4. Superiors/Subordinates are different to me
5. Power is a basic fact of society which is independent of morality. It is there to be used - legitimacy is irrelevant
6. Power gives priviledges.
7. Powerful people try to look as powerful as possible. (pomp + ceremony)
8. Coercion and referent power are accepted
9. If something goes wrong - it's the underdog fault.
10. To change the social system, dethrone those in power (revolution)
11. Everyone wants your power - don't trust them.
12. Latent conflict between powerful-powerless.
13. Co-operation is hard due to lack of trust.

Which means organizational compliance and not innovation becomes a bigger requirement for the company that anything else. One classic example is one manager of research division in a well known MNC in its Indian operations wanted all his employees spend 12 hours in the office as there was some delivery team which had a project delivery in a month's time and this would mean research team is showing solidarity to the company's cause. In anyway he was never seen in office after 5:00pm. In another Indian organization the owner of the organization wanted all his employees to work 11 hours or more in the company while he took substantial golf and gym breaks. Why is this power distance appearing? Here are some cited reasons:

High Power Distance

1. Tropical and sub-tropical climates
   
2. Survival and population growth just less dependent on intervention with nature (food is easy to get...)
3. Less reliance on technology
4. Historical: Early legislation not applied to rulers, Divided inheritance.
5. Less need for education of "lower classes"
   
6. Less social mobility, polarised society (rich - poor)
   
7. Less _national_ wealth.
   
8. Wealth concentrated in the hands of a small "elite"
   
9. Political power is concentrated in a small "elite" (military, oligarchy, etc)
10. Large population - little resistance to mass "integration"
    
11. Historical: Occupation, colonization, imperialism.
    
12. Centralization of Political power.
    
13. More static societies
    
14. Children dependent on Parents and elders
    
15. Less questioning of Authority in General.

As can be seen in the Indian context the power distance is so high that for a rational organization operation it is no way that there can be two separate power centers for both outward and inward looking roles.

What is the Solution?

I personally believe that the western management principles for research organizations does not really apply to India. There is a need to structure it differently than following the standard architect (tech lead) and manager model. Here are some basic changes that can be brought in:

Empower employees with more freedom to decide and also manage interpersonal issues.

Address personal issues early so that it does not get to dysfunctional proportions that leads to management spending too much time in setting that right.

Inculcate technology knowledge in managers. Make them thorough practitioners. If the step 1 and 2 are taken care of managers will have more time to develop themselves.

Remove the Human Resources belief that technology can be inorganically acquired while management is to be developed in the organization itself. Ideally, both can be acquired and developed depending on the situation. TISCO hired its VP, Projects Mr. R. P. Singh few years before he was retiring and not promoted someone within TISCO. The change the Mr. R. P. Singh brought into the organization is of course all very well known.

Project Management is all about people management. Sorry, project management is about projects. In software the KSF driver being people project management tends to be wrongly named as people management. The best way to manage really talented, motivated people is by giving them a freehand. I guess if you want to be great companies who hire the best people why is this simple management practice is not in operation. To build a "Skunk Works" or "3M" is not to monitor every employee but to empower them.

I will be interested to know your views on this.