How Google Works - Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg

I am fascinated by the astounding growth of Google as a company and of what it has achieved. There are innumerable positives that Google has brought into our lives (not to mention a few causes for worry too - the amount of information it has about me being the prime one). But overall it's well in the positive and still growing. So, a book that gives an insight into its thinking is something I just could not resist. Just as I have my reservations about certain things Google does while also admiring many other things it does right, the book had its pluses and minuses. But who is looking at minuses right now - let me take away all that it did right.

To start with I liked how the two authors, top managers at Google say they relearned everything about management in their years at Google. And the way they put company culture first up - its the key to how the company functions. It's amazing how many companies miss that part and do not give much thought to nurturing the culture they'd like to see in their company. 

Culture

The authors advise companies to first believe in their own slogans (and not simply write stuff  that no one knows or believes). They cite a classic example of how culture reflects in ownership at work. Larry finds certain ads that don't match the search parameters. His response - a note on the board with the offending ads and a comment that "These ads suck". (No calling the teams responsible for a meeting etc, just a simple expression that something was not right with the whole.) The response to his action is even more interesting. A team of Googlers totally unrelated to the product team that was responsible for the offending results sees the note, comes together, works over the weekend, builds a prototype and comes with sample results. These guys were not even on the ads team. Now how many companies can boast of such passion, ownership and freedom is what we need to concern ourselves with. Not many I'd say. It boils down to culture.

I can see many HR professionals and managers jump up and say - its easy for Google to do that because they pay well etc and how its not the same for everyone. (How companies go anywhere with such negative HR people I always wonder.) But look at the founding principle google works on - if the culture is right, the right people will come. Its the culture that attracted people like the team that worked on something that was not their headache really. The authors term such people as Smart Creatives – those who value the culture of the place more than other things. Now hopefully the significance of culture drops in.

Nowhere have I heard this said so emphatically - that culture is the most important thing. And I believe it is right. If cultures have to be built the cultural pillars and codes must be carefully identified and behaviors clarified.

The next question, how do we set culture? The solution the authors give is simple - ask the core team these questions. What do we care about? What do we believe in? What do we want to be? How do we want our company to act and make decisions? The best cultures are aspirational. 

Some of Google's own founding principles - "Focus on the user" "Long term focus" "Don’t be evil" "Making the world a better place" etc.

To me, cultures are shown at the door, at first level of interaction like the security guard, the receptionist, the one who takes the call. Are they innovative and service oriented. If they are not, you're only talking.

Office Spaces

If you have Smart Creatives (SCs), keep them crowded because they like the energy. They like interacting with one another so facilitate that energy buildup by creating facilities that maximise interactions. Not distant isolated cabins that separate everyone. In fact the authors ask - keep them so crowded so you hit someone if you swing your arm. At the same time give them quiet spaces to reflect and rejuvenate and be by themselves.

The key idea is this. When at work be surrounded by team members, work, eat, live together. Don't worry about messy, just let them go with the ideas. Be stingy with things that don’t matter and invest in stuff that does. And Google expects people to work at office and not at home. Makes sense.

One of the things that struck me during cricket workshops was this. The same people who work in quiet solitude and isolated behaviors at office, come together and bond with high energy in the cricket workshops. The energy is some 20 times more. My question was always this - can we take this energy back to the office and if not, why? Now I got my answer. It's because offices are not designed to be energetic. They separate energies. Now if my cricket dressing room was like an office with the captain in a big cabin on the highest floor and all others in faraway cabins, can you imagine how the energies would be. What Google has cracked is that - keep the layout like a dressing room and the energy comes automatically.

Also to be stingy with what does not matter - great story. Reminds me of two promoters I saw during my days in the bank. One who spent all his money building electric fences and guest houses and ran out of money for the main equipment. Another who used all his short term monies to build the main assets and was already into production and revenue generation. 

Decision Making

The authors talk of the dreaded HIPPOS – the Highest Paid Person's Opinion. It's common sense that decision making quality and experience may not always go hand in hand. But its a cultural thing again if one has  to look at data and not mere opinions. Clearly, its the quality of idea that matters and not who suggests it. 

Now most companies will find it difficult to accept this. On one hand they want fresh ideas but on the other hand they will not like juniors to come up with fresh (perhaps half baked ideas). These are the insecure leaders. They ask for ideas, trash everybody's ideas and then impose their ideas on the rest of the team. Most creative guys will leave such teams.

To be able to take ideas at face value you need to have confidence in your people and to do that you need to have enough self confidence (secure) to let them ideate a better way. For a culture of meritocracy managers must understand and build a culture where dissent is an obligation, and not an option. They must empower juniors to come up with and defend their ideas. Wonderful stuff and truly aspirational.

Team sizes

Google (or the authors) suggests flat hierarchies. They recommend a minimum of 7 direct reports. They quote Bezo (Amazon?) and his 2 pizza rule - teams must be small enough to be fed with 2 pizzas. The principle - small teams get more work done.

People Principles 

To get great work done find impact people who run the company by performance and passion. Organise around them. Invest in people who do what they think is right- whether or not you give your permission (you'd think that was a basic rule but then most times its only lip service ).Okay once you find impact people who will run with your ideas, push them. Give those people more work to do. Push them until they tell you its enough. Whoa! The 20% of the Pareto's lot?

Now Impact People will come with their own quirks. Google differentiates between knaves and divas.  The rule here - exile knaves, fight to keep the divas. Both may seem alike but here are the differences. Knaves  are arrogant, have no integrity, are sloppy, selfish, jealous, take credit. Once a knave always a knave so get rid of them. Divas are good because they think they are better than the team but do not harm the team. They may actually push the team.

In technology companies the authors recommend the top management ought to have 50% who are product experts. Finance and sales are 2^nd.

Overwork?
Work is an integral part of our life - it takes up most of our waking hours, keeps us paying bills, feeds our aspirations. But most people (I did too) seem to think that work is something we do until some great big fortune happens and our dreams come true. To me work is where you hone your attitude, skills  etc on the path to making your dreams come true. I'd actually like to see a system coming where people actually pay to work in good companies!

Anyway overworked in a good way is what the authors suggest because work is an important part of life and is not separable. Give responsibility and freedom to these Smart Creatives (works for all teenagers too! or anyone else). Make them own things for which they are responsible and see how they run with it. Most surprise you. 

As for burnout, I like the perspective that it happens not by overwork but by resentment at giving up what matters. Nice insight. So it helps to give the employees control. Once again the onus shifts back to having secure leaders who are willing to trust and mentor and care. Find the right leaders and much can be done right.

Establish a culture of YES (this is for the Managers)

Facing NOs from their managers repeatedly is a tiny death of Smart Creatives say the authors. Enough NOs and Smart Creatives stop asking and exit. Saying YES as a manager leads to new experiences.

My experience with the NOs has been the same. There are people I know who say they are always open to new ideas. The moment a new idea is brought to the table it is cut short and a long lecture on what is wrong with the new idea follows. New ideas first come to the table as work in progress - not as full grown trees. By cutting down the ideas when they are young my manager friend effectively stopped his entire team from opening their mouths. 'When I ask you for new ideas you have nothing to say,' he says. 'See, we have such useless talent.' It's self fulfilling. If only he had that much security within himself to nod and  listen and say go on, so many of those ideas would have come out. Some may fail but so much new thought could have come. Now the team works like it is dead. They know it does not pay to give out any new ideas.

Fun-Not FUN

When Ian Chappell said that the way to bring the best out of the team is to make the cricket interesting, I could not agree more. Here the authors think on similar lines. A great job should be fun they say. Certainly future success is fun. But most fun comes everyday things - laughing, joking and enjoying company of one's colleagues. Ho can we keep it fun is the question? Loosen up.

I have a problem with the ways many company try to engage employees. Big parties, big hotels, booze, food, event managers who don't have a clue - its all so tacky and trashy. It somehow shows the unimaginative culture of the company. Fun can be in so many different ways, so many enriching ways. Book clubs, walks - use your head fellows.

How To Find Talent

Create the culture and the talent will come. To find the people you want, find one of those types first and then ask for the people they know. 

Porn Filters to Image Searches
Good insight here. While attempting to filter porn images the team realised that there could be a broader use of that application - image searches - where you drag an image into the search bar and it throws up similar images. The lesson - start with a solution to a narrow problem and then broaden its success. You never know where it could go. (It happens a bit like that when writing - a small sliver of an idea grows into something much bigger.)

Back Technical Insights 
For tech companies or startups, the advise is to back technical insights. What is the Tech Insight that gives you an advantage? What aids your growth? What keeps the energy growing? 

Google's original idea was to share as much as possible and to keep improving their search engine. Their focus was to get great at search which they thought they were good at (resisting the idea of becoming a portal which many did). They backed themselves on what they felt they were better at than anyone else. (Which is backing your competitive advantage anyway!)

Default to open, not closed

The google policy is to default to open. In fact they make it easy for customers to leave. Another useful tip - don’t follow competition. It's limiting.

Eric’s notes
Start by asking what will be true in 5 years and work backwards.

Once you put your head inside, or go to the finish line first, all you need to do is walk backwards and address the possible blocks. It is done!

Another important tip. Get input from everyone in the room. Start soon and iterate – iterations can follow based on learning.

Successful companies that grew large all solved problems and used the solution in its products success. They solved a problem for society that way.

Talent Management

This part got me all awake. The authors feel that hiring is the most important job one does. That's because the best talent takes the team places. Though the authors feel that no amount of strategy can substitute for talent I feel differently. In the end its a mix and much depends on the leader.

The authors recommend a committee-based hiring where peers are involved. Google promoted their culture with their hiring line "You’re brilliant. We’re hiring." That kind of an ad attracts all those who think they are brilliant.

What do you look for when hiring? Passionate people (be aware that passionate people don’t use the P word. They live it.) Learning animals. Character, Passion, Intelligence, Growth mindset and how Interesting they are (this through a test - what if you were stuck at an airport for 6 hours with that person).

The list grows longer - Cognitive ability, role related knowledge, leadership experience, googleyness

Ambition and drive, service orientation, listening and communication skills, bias to action (I like that), effectiveness, interpersonal skills, creativity and integrity. That's a lot.

The authors feel that diverse cultures are best (unlike the Indian company that rejected Muslim candidates recently). The idea is to respect - not necessarily like. Look for potential. Everyone knows someone great so get everyone to recruit - referrals, interviews, metrics.

Interviewing

Interviewing  is the most important skill they say. To interview - Prepare. Find info about the person. Ask challenging questions. Test limits of capabilities. Insights.

Schedule interviews for 30 minutes. Hire for passion

Don’t compromise quality of hiring. Ever.

Retaining Talent
Google gives disproportionate rewards when people do a good job. That said, you need to keep their jobs interesting. But when you lose them (which you might if you keep loading them with work) let them go. However try and retain the innovators, the leaders. Counsel them. Seek information on why they are going. Ask them their elevator pitch and if they are not ready ask them to postpone their decision until they are ready. If nothing else get them on the alumni network.

Qualities to Look for when Hiring (Again?)

Smart, knowledgeable, adds value, gets things done, enthusiastic, passionate, self motivated, inspires and work well in the system, well rounded unique interests and talents, ethical, communicates openly,

On Career

The authors feel that it's like surfing. The right industry is like the right place to surf, while the right company is the correct wave to catch. 

Model Employee
Should know his elevator pitch about what he is working on. Combines passion with contribution.

Nice. Shows how much thought he has put in and how engaged he is.

On Decisions 

Decide with data. Show the evidence. Make fewer decisions, meet everyday

On Focus
On spending 80% time on 80% revenue. (how few get that!)

Coaches

Google believes in having coaches for their players. Makes sense. I agree with that. A perspective always helps.

Communications 

Share information. Default to open – transparency. Repeat 20 times. Reinforce core themes (Google's are - user first, think big, don’t be afraid to fail). Make communication fresh, effective, interesting, fun, inspirational and authentic. Check for the right media, for right people.

Self Review
This is something most managers might fail - would you work for yourself? Most just don't get it that its people like them who do the work finally and what works for them works for others too mostly.

Relationships

Business should always be outrunning the process which means constant chaos is good. To foster good people relationships listen, make people smile and use praise. (I can see many going - why should I?)

Innovation

Innovation is the next big thing. To get innovative ideas find and attract optimistic people, give them the space to create change and culture. Ideas come from anywhere –reward workers for inventions and improvements

Think big, Think 10x 

10 X is what I believe we are capable of when we are fully engaged. With support and platforms, it could grow even more. Give your Smart Creatives more freedom, bigger challenges. The work and responsibility should induce joy, not anxiety - that's the check for a Smart Creatives and fakes.

Set Unattainable goals

Objectives and Key Results – look at the big picture with measurable key results, should be a stretch to achieve. Then go for it.

Resource Allocation 
70/20/10 – Core business, Emerging products and new things, Big failure risks

Creativity loves constraints

I agree. Lack of resources forces ingenuity. It's a paradox but like all p's, true.

20% time

20% time where employees work on whatever they choose. Actually it becomes 120% of time because its outside their regular work timings. So employees can try their hand at something new, build a prototype and work together with a team. Helps them understand ownership and develops many aspects of their personality too. In fact I think its a great idea to grow people. 

Failure 

The authors stress on creating an environment resilient enough to take on risks and tolerate failures. But the key is to fail fast. With a long term vision.

Imagine the unimaginable

This requires a culture that encourages innovation. Most innovative things look like small opportunities. People are not rewarded normally for taking risks and are penalised for failure which is a sure case for missing opportunities.

And there is so much more in the book. From the look of it Google seems to have practiced what most preach and have the results to show for it. The book is easy to read especially because its written for the lay person, complete with the dummy jokes etc. It does give credibility to their idea of defaulting to open. Though the authors debunk some of the old school management ideas, one can see that many ideas are in fact refinements of the old structures. You still need vision, plans, people etc. But where they have been great is at managing something so fluid by reacting fast and keeping it all under control (by giving up control). Many thoughts and more importantly practices are aspirational without doubt. Many could learn and benefit from it and one can only thank the authors for sharing so transparently. If you're looking to become a Google, worth a read.

Sputnik Sweetheart - Haruki Murakami

Another Murakami down. There's the narrator, a young conscientious lad out of college and now teaching in a school. His friend Sumire from college perhaps, an aspiring novelist, with a very handsome father (why is that important?). These two are great friends. She calls him at early hours to discuss some vague ideas. She has no interest in him as a lover, only as a friend. In fact her only interest is in becoming a novelist and not in love or sex. He however would not have minded an affair with her. They complement one another well.

Sumire meets an older woman (almost 17 years older) and falls in love with her. Miu (the older woman) employs Sumire and mentors her into a life of sophistication. During this period our narrator loses touch with Sumire and finds himself a lover, the mother of a boy he teaches at school.

One fine day he gets a calls from Miu. Come to Greece is the message. He goes. Sumire is missing. They have no clues. He finally reads some stuff she writes on her computer - about an experience Miu has had of being out of her body and watching a parallel life playing out in front of her. Then something about a cat that vanishes from the top of a tree. Then the narrator returns back home.

Meanwhile the boy whose mother he is seeing is caught for shoplifting. The narrator tells him the story of Sumire. His affair with the mother ends.

Between Sputniks, Beatles, Huey Lewis and the News, beer bars, dis functional youngsters, the plot moves towards an ending that does not happen. Some scenes drag on - the way Miu and the narrator talk of everything except the disappearance of the girl and stuff like that.

As with all Murakami I may not fully remember the story but some scenes will remain etched in my mind. 

Anjali - Money Will Come, Money Will Go

I was trying to engage Anjali one fine morning on the vacation in Pune.

‘Shall we go to the mall tomorrow morning?’ I asked tentatively.

‘Yes!’ she jumped up. ‘Yes, yes.’

I was apprehensive at her enthusiasm.

‘Why are you so happy?’ I asked. ‘So you can buy things there?’

She made a face and shrugged her shoulders.

‘Yes, we can buy things. Food, toys, things..’

‘Ah my money will go,’ I said.

She shrugged.

‘So what? Money will go. Things will come.’

I wish I had that bit of wisdom when I was younger. Now I read the Tao of Abundance and understand that money is about circulation. 

It makes perfect sense.

Money will go and things will come. Keep the flow going. Don't stop the flow.

Train to Pakistan – Khushwant Singh

Another classic that has long been on the list but has eluded me somehow. So when I saw this little book perched on Mythily’s bookshelf I picked it up.  The story is set in a little village Mano Majra on the border of Punjab. The time is when the country has been divided into India and Pakistan and people are crossing over – Muslims to Pakistan and Hindus to India. The village has one main attraction – its small railway station through which trains pass by and rarely stop.

The story begins with a dacoity in the house of the village moneylender. The dacoits murder him and on the way out throw some bangles in the house of the village dacoit Juggut Singh, a known offender. Jaggut Singh is at that very moment making love to a young Muslim weaver girl in the fields, flouting orders from the police that he should be in the village after sunset. A western educated communist of unknown origin and religion arrives in the in the village at the same time. The next day or perhaps the same evening a train arrives from Pakistan full of dead bodies. The local police and military quietly cremates the thousands of innocents. Meanwhile the educated young man Iqbal and Juggut Singh are both arrested in suspicion for the murder of the money lender. Another train arrives with dead bodies. The village which has lived harmoniously with its Muslim inhabitants still sticks by them, but now outsiders come into the picture. We must retaliate, we must send trains full of dead bodies to Pakistan they say. The plan is hatched.

The Magistrate is in love with  a Muslim nautch girl and he feels sad she will be killed too. He plays a wild card knowing he cannot do anything to stop the planned massacre of the train to Pkistan. He releases the idealistic, educated communist and the young dacoit in love with the Muslim weaver’s daughter. Both have motives to stop the massacre. But would their motive be greater than their life? Whose purpose drives him to sacrifice himself to save that train full of Muslims and thereby save his own love? The story ends dramatically. I loved the way he ended it though and in a way grateful too.

“Train to Pakistan” is considered a classic. The writing is beautiful as he describes the villages, the situation. The characters are interesting and clearly etched. You can visualise everything and to me it’s almost as if I was part of the crowd in Mano Marjda watching everything as it unfolded. Also it was an important story that had to be told – of what happened during partition. One can see the humongous error or mischief played by the British government in making two countries with such lousy plans of executing it. If the Nazis were guilty of so many deaths of innocents, the British have on their hands the blood of as many with their ideas of Partition.

If there is one lack in the book I felt it was that of emotion. Probably because it was a raw wound and far too fresh – Khushwant Singh published it in 1956 – and he perhaps kept it understated for a reason . One does not understand the educated man’s motive for being in such a dangerous place at such explosive times with such low convictions. The love of Jaggut Singh never rises above lust and one cannot see him making sacrifices for anyone – he is a dacoit after all with no scruples. I wonder what a canny person like the Magistrate Hukum Chand was thinking with all his experience and power in finding the solution he does for the girl. If each of these stories had been given more depth and meaning their motives could have been clearer and more powerful.

But it’s a book we must all read to understand our history. Partition is not a mere word and things did not happen smoothly. It’s a page in our history not many talk about nor write about and it’s something everyone wants to forget. But it’s a truth that shows people for what they can be– the good and the bad, the trauma and the pain – and our capacity to heal and rebuild. Questions that come up are these – are people the same or are they different? Are some people not to be trusted? Are there no stories where some communities have shown that they also stand for what is good? Who leads these campaigns? Who kills and who wants to loot and rape? What happens to sanity and rational thinking? And most importantly, if it can happen then, what will stop it happening now? 

Lolita – Vladimir Nabakov

A forty something man falls hopelessly in love with a twelve year old (his idea of beauty is young girls of such tender age) and manipulates things to an extent that he marries her mother to get close to her, then somehow wills the mother’s death, takes off with the twelve year old daughter and engages in a lustful incestuous relationship with her. It does not sound like a book that would be considered a classic and sounds more like stuff that should have a law forbidding it surely (and those were my initial reactions to it too). But as you read Lolita you understand how well he has written such a potentially explosive book that can go over the line, and kept it always under.

You can feel the old man’s desire for his nymphets, as if it’s something alive, and actually feel for him and his helplessness in dealing with this secret desire, the young girl’s initial rebelliousness and her coquettish and mischievous nature that pushes the old man over the line, and then her helplessness as he takes over her life and controls it completely with his possessiveness. As the story grows on you past the initial stages of mere fantasy into a sordid reality, a reality you are secretly accomplice to as as a reader, you really want to know what will happen to them. Will she escape him? How does she cope? Does she find true love? How does the old man deal with her loss? The story goes to a logical conclusion but its not about that really. It’s a book one cannot write about much because the balance is so delicate, the writing so exquisite – one must read it to appreciate it.

Happy I finally got this one done with. Thanks Prarthana.

Virat Kohli - "That's What We Play Cricket For"

I have not seen anything as brilliant as Virat Kohli's response to the game situation against Sunrisers Hyderabad. Am imposing target of 81 to chase in 6 overs, a good bowling attack and a history of the Sunrisers always puncturing their dreams notwithstanding, skipper Kohli stood up to set a wrong right.

Gayle set the one and got out. AB went early. All now rested on the third impact player of the team, Kohli. He is the only one who has the steel to pull this off. And he was not timing the ball.

So he takes the next best option, convert his mishits into twos with some amazing running between the wickets. The way he runs between wickets shows how much he has prepared for these moments, where every single run is important.

But he knows he cannot win the game on twos. He needs to find the boundary. He changes his bat.

The next ball sails over the fence for a six. RCB is back in the game which the Sunrisers were running away with.

Then in the crucial over he decided to keep strike. He backed himself to win the game on his own.

But the moment which he described as "these are the moments we play cricket for" are these. In the very last over Bhuvaneshwar Kumar brought on all his expertise (and he is one of the most skillful) to bowl those deadly yorkers of his. The first, was bang on and no other batsmen in the world would have been able to do what Kohli did in that situation. Driven as much by the moment as by his desire to win, Kohli not only kept that vicious ball out but squeezed it between cover and point for a boundary. It was not just about skill - it was about a mindset that would not accept defeat whatever happens. Whatever he bowls I will find the answer, the boundary. It was an unbelievable sight to see the ball hit the fence.

The next was even better. Kohli shaped to go to the off and play the delivery down to fine leg. Having committed to the shot, he saw that Bhuvaneshwar had cannily fired the ball wide of the off stump. Instead of accepting defeat and taking a single of a double, he changed his shot midway and played the delivery to the off, still having the presence of mind and the skill to place the ball between short third man and the cover point. Four.

Then the six which Warner missed and RCB was home.

His reaction to this fabulous display of intensity? That's what we play cricket for. I wish more players could say that. Fantastic stuff.

Talk at Infosys - The Connection Between Ownership, Quality, Leadership and Cricket

I was invited to speak on Ownership and Quality - and I added Leadership because that's my current favorite. In many ways I think they all mean the same thing in the end or can be connected pretty quickly because they are all about doing things well.

The talk went a bit like this. And some.

After the session - (Pic courtesy: Rajneesh Malviya, right) 

Talk at Infosys, Hyderabad on May 13, 2015

Ownership, Quality, Leadership (and Cricket)

     

      The need for quality

As captains and selectors of cricket teams desirous of becoming champion teams (or to remain as champion teams) the search for quality players is constant. We want to win. We want the best talent that will help us win. But who are these quality players? Where do we find them?

There are many definitions of quality. In selection committees we normally have big arguments over these two aspects – is quality about statistics or is it about "talent" with inconsistent performances. I think the truth lies somewhere in between, or rather a mix of both.

How to identify quality players?

• Separate the real from the fake - Much of our time goes in trying to separate the real from the fake. Some pointers we follow to identify the quality players vs fakes are:               
• Impact players vs Those with useless stats (look for matches won or saved)
• -          Love challenges vs Withdraw from challenges (big match players)
• -          Take higher responsibility for team vs Running away in key moments
• -          Results vs excuses (contribute positively)

   

If you were to play selectors, what attributes would you pick as quality?

• ·     Consistently high performance, raise bar each time, work hardest, make less mistakes
• ·         Deliver in all conditions, mentally tough, know process, adapt, recover and self-correct faster
• ·         Create impact, match winning performances, nail every chance, ownership to be change agents

Now we know what defines quality let us see where we stand. Can we also become like them? What makes these quality players? What is it that they have? What do we need to be like them? 

Us vs them. Talent vs application. A story to put things in perspective.

158 runs were scored by me on a snap decision I made to get back the runs I gave away while bowling (I gave away 128 runs). It was a quality innings because of its zero defects (ok, one error but dropped catch), Did It Right The First Time etc). I realised that I had to power to decide. I had to POWER to CREATE.

What do we learn from this story?

We can decide to take ownership and create impact – NOW.

It was application of what was there, nothing new was added, all resources became precious and useful

10X Impact

I made an impact of 10x, It was an unexpected win, (Also think of the number of players who score when they have a point to prove i.e. comebacks etc. Proves my point. You can if you make up your mind. I also have two other incidents of selling bonds and corporate finance and returning 10X performances when I owned those processes - mentioned in 50 no)

The Big Key

Decision to take ownership for my clearly defined part – that's the big Key. All else falls into place, process, preparation, work, details, application.

Clearly Quality players are about how much RESPONSIBILITY they take. 100% responsibility means no one is to blame - not rain, not bad luck, not umpires, not fate, not bad management etc. Its just you. It's the champion’s mindset, the 10x in us. 

It's just a decision to take greater responsibility.

Ask yourself - What’s the best I can do for myself? For my team? NOW. All you need to do is RECALIBRATE your mindset and DECIDE now. Take responsibility. Commit.

Why be a quality player?

It's hard work. Its more responsibility. What do I get for it? Satisfaction? Growth? Respect? You figure out. If you can't, take it easy.

      

Leadership - what's the connect between ownership and good leadership. 

Until we feel the pain of the leader, we cannot become good leaders. We cannot create, make a difference. My model for leadership.

-          Insecure leaders – All power, no responsibility. Result - they lose, fail consistently

-          Personal leadership – No power,  full responsibility, take ownership. Result -  win, first flexion point to magic

-          Secure leadership – power, responsibility, know and don’t know, transfer ownership, grow others, vulnerability

How to transfer ownership?

Get out of the way. Grow they. Be patient. Treat your wards as you would yourself if you needed to give your best.  Its all about energy management

Quality then is about 

• -          Deciding
• -          Set clear goals
• -          Reset higher goals once you achieve them

Imagine a world full of 10x people. A team full of 10x people.      

      The starting point is the Mindset. (this, we did not have time to cover so I skipped but its important and part of the story.) 

      Fixed Mindset vs Growth Mindset (from Mindset by Dr. Carol Dweck)

(FM – Non learners, Desire to look smart, avoid challenges, give up easily, get defensive, see effort as fruitless, non learners, ignore negative feedback, feels threatened by others success)

GM – Learner, embrace challenges, persist in the face of setbacks, see effort as path to mastery, learn from criticism, find lessons and inspiration from others success)

To go from FM to GM – Ask for help, do small things to affect change, work on mindsets and beliefs, get process orientation, get over world owes me and denial, push gently to find something harder, learn and help learn)

With a learning mindset we tend towards expertise – the 10000 hours for expertise rule

3 factors to identify expertise - Performance superior to peers, Produce concrete results, Process can be replicated in lab

Our entire effort is to create champion mindsets, teams, leaders

Quality players

-          Do it right the first time – preparation, deliberate practice

-          Process orientation – know / not know, less mistakes, do not repeat mistakes, recover fast

-          Constant Improvement – Aim higher at each new limit

-          Big impact

Q & A
This talk was not as important as the questions that were raised and answered very well by Narry who gave a vote of thanks and more importantly put things in perspective far better than I could during my talk. The answers here however are mine though.

Q. There's a big difference between playing a game of cricket and the corporate arena. How can we equate the same?

A. Not really. Both are about results. Both are about performance. Both are about resource utilisation. Both are about pain and pleasure, loss or exultation. The one big difference could be that the game is all about now - I know the result at the end of the day - and feel the pain or pleasure of victory instantly. In the corporate arena results may not be so immediate - and also most can hide behind the team. In the game there's no place to hide.

Which is why the game is a good one to understand certain principles that guide teams, energies, leaders, dynamics, performances, facilitation etc. It becomes a simulated environment to know people ("I can know more about a person in an hours play than twenty years of discussion" - Plato)

Q. What about accountability? How can you seize accountability from the skipper who is finally accountable?

A. Perhaps the skipper is finally accountable. But then each member of the team is equally accountable. Otherwise what are you doing there? The dream of every leader and skipper is to grow a team full of people who will feel his pain and who will take as much accountability as he himself does. Make no mistake - it does become the responsibility of  every player to behave with as much accountability as the captain. So to have a team full of captains (responsibility wise) is the best thing to happen. It is what we are all aspiring for.

Q. Isn't it all too much about 'I' and less about the team? "I" scored 158*?

A. Unless and until we take personal leadership and expand our given role horizontally to achieve its fullest potential we will never know what ownership is, what the team is and how we can make a difference to the bigger picture. Whatever our role is - a sweeper, a receptionist, a tea boy, a CEO - until we understand the power of personal leadership, we have not even started participating in the creative process. Its the first serious point where the person realises he has personal power to influence outcomes. He will truly understand what his role is about really and how much he can influence it.

Q. What if everyone starts behaving like he is the captain? Won't there be chaos?

A. People who take ownership do so with the team interest in mind. If everyone in the team took up the responsibility of the team as if he were the leader that is the ideal situation really because we have fully committed players. The intensity they bring to their work is more to do with their own role and they facilitate others perform better  too. In their role they grow horizontally - taking care of more and more details, adding more and more value to their work which shines through for the rest of the team. There will be no chaos really (unless the captain is an insecure person and is acting against the interest of the team in which case the person who is dissenting is still in the right).

Q. How can we show vulnerability? In corporate sector we are all expected to be in charge and in control and know everything?
A. In showing vulnerability you are only making space for the others to open up too. To be more secure. It is not that one claims one knows nothing or that one is totally dependent on the others. Just that one is open enough to say one knows what one knows and one does not know what one does not know (but is willing to learn). In fact many times its just a matter of listening attentively to a new perspective and allowing them freedom to grow that initiative.
But to act like we know everything is an indication of a space that is not secure. Its a space that is not transparent. That may not be ideal and will have to be addressed. How much ever we claim to know everything, everyone around us knows exactly how much we know really.

Some appreciation from Rajneesh Malviya on his tweet.
Opportunity to listen Harimohan Paruvu, author of "50 not out". Great aspirational talk. Everyone can do 10x.