The Corporate Jungle Book

“It's a jungle out there

Disorder and confusion everywhere

No one seems to care

Well I do

Hey, who's in charge here?

It's a jungle out there”

Title track – Monk

Written and Performed by Randy Newman

My young nephew is quite fascinated by wildlife. Often, he picks a pictorial book and educates me about various species of animals. Over time, our conversations got me thinking about uncanny similarities between wild animals and humans. Oddly, several human variants of the ‘animal’ kind can be found in the workplace, making the latter a corporate jungle.

Here’s a list of creatures you are most likely to encounter in the corporate jungle:

The Vulture

Vultures are scavengers i.e. unlike predators which hunt their prey, vultures feed on dead animals hunted by predators.

The corporate jungle is full of vultures who feed on others’ work and accomplishments. Vultures exist across hierarchies—from those who steal credit for work done by their co-workers, to managers who feed off their subordinates’ achievements. A variety of factors ranging from incompetence, insecurity, lethargy to malevolence can give rise to the corporate vulture.

Have you encountered a colleague or manager who is nowhere in the picture when a project is initiated and the hard yards are being put in. As the project approaches completion and success is in sight, he suddenly appears. Thereon, the corporate vulture is firmly in-charge and hogs the limelight and accolades.

Finally, here’s a tell-tale sign of a vulture in a leadership role: Even when he’s speaking for the team, he always uses ‘I’, rather than ‘we’.

The Chameleon

Chameleons have the ability to change their colour in response to environmental conditions such as light and temperature. In other words, the chameleon can assume different avatars at different occasions.

The corporate chameleon focuses solely on self-preservation. To achieve his goal, he always swims with the tide, and is committed to being non-committal.

Consider a sales manager who in his meetings with the engineering department agrees that their product line is the best-in-class, and that there’s a need to impress the same upon customers. When he meets customers, the sales manager rues that his engineering department’s products aren’t in line with customer requirements. Furthermore, he will enthusiastically support the CEO’s proposal to shut down the engineering department and migrate to a different business segment.

The Queen Bee

The queen bee is at the centre of a bee colony. She leads a charmed existence and is both followed and protected by other bees. To be fair, she does her bit for the colony by producing the workforce.

However, the corporate queen bee can be put on a pedestal despite being the most unproductive member of the workforce. She draws her power from proximity to someone in the top brass. For instance, she can be completely clueless when it comes to her work, however, she will be unambiguously aware of the CEO’s favourite cuisine, colour and birthday.

If you come across an HR professional dishing out instructions on acquiring clients to the sales team, or a marketing manager tutoring the tech team on how to write codes (and, the inane advice being gleefully lapped up), you’ve encountered the quintessential corporate queen bee.

The Bear

Despite the notion suggested by cuddly teddy bear toys, bears can be ferocious beasts. Not only is their size and demeanour intimidating, a charging bear can make even the bravest skip a beat.

Similarly, the corporate bear relies heavily on intimidation. His walks and talks aggressively for no apparent reason. Even a routine conversation can be laden with threats. His belief stems from the line of thought that “bullying is the mantra to success”. Like most bullies, the corporate bear is a coward deep inside, using his ‘tough guy’ demeanour to hide his insecurities and inadequacies.

Here’s an example of a corporate bear in action: For an opening wherein holding an MBA degree is listed as a prerequisite, the CEO starts the interview by declaring “I hate MBAs and think all MBAs are dumb”. Another classic trait: a honcho who uses every annual performance review to put down his employees, even if they’ve beaten their targets by a handsome margin.

The corporate bear is most likely to use the phrase: “Because I said so”.

The Chimpanzee

Chimpanzees spend most of their time in treetops away from the rest of the jungle population. They are largely harmless to other species. Also, despite their ability to use tools, they are perceived as clowns, thanks to stereotyping.

The corporate chimpanzee goes through the motions, neither causing any harm, nor being particularly productive either. He will typically be the faceless and voiceless individual who follows the crowd. He is most likely to say “I agree” in just about any scenario.

Identifying the corporate chimpanzee isn’t difficult. He’s the one who regularly gets walked over; the one routinely transferred from one department to another for no logical reason. When things go south, he finds himself in the line of fire; oddly, when things pan out, he never gets any credit for the success. The evolved corporate chimpanzee is aware of his precarious position and tries hard to fly under the radar at all times.

Disclosure:

All the corporate animals and incidents mentioned in this article have been drawn from real life. Any similarity to actual events or persons is intentional 😊

You're in Trouble if Your Manager is…

In his book ‘The Dilbert Principle’, author and cartoonist Scott Adams writes “The basic concept of the Dilbert Principle is that the most ineffective workers are systematically moved to the place where they can do the least damage: management”.

Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in a corporation will vouch for or at the very least, empathise with Adams’s satirical view of the corporate world. While I can’t claim to have undergone the wrenching experiences that Adams may have (which in turn perhaps inspired him to create the iconic Dilbert) I have had my fair share of eclectic managers and bosses. I thought it will be interesting to put out a checklist of manager traits that should set alarm bells ringing. In other words, you are likely in trouble if your manager is any of the following:

1. The PowerPoint enthusiast

As the name suggests this manager loves to make presentations. He is an expert at using tools such as PowerPoint. The trouble is that instead of using tools to effectively communicate his subject matter, he uses them to make up for lack of subject matter. The thinking is simple—“I’ll dazzle you with so many slides, graphs and images that you will not realise that in fact I had nothing worthwhile to say”.

For instance, watch out for managers who make presentations on annual revenue projections wherein a 50% jump in revenue is projected with absolutely no clues as to the strategy or plans that will be deployed to achieve the projected growth.

2. The Sir Humphrey Appleby clone

In the legendary BBC comedy ‘Yes Minister’, Nigel Hawthorne plays Sir Humphrey Appleby, a bureaucrat who is skilled at talking nineteen to the dozen without committing to anything. There’s a cult of managers who model themselves on Appleby.

A manager of this variety often sits on the fence when faced with an executive decision. However, he does ramble endlessly making liberal use of jargon, leaving his subordinates thoroughly confused on the apt course of action. Should things work out well, the manager swoops in to claim credit; on the contrary i.e. in the event of things going wrong, subordinates take the flak for failing to follow instructions.

3. The Teflon manager

This manager has turned passing the buck into an art form. He will typically thrive in a workplace wherein there are multiple reporting lines (and expectedly multiple teams/departments too), so that he has several targets to point fingers at. To be fair to him, he spares no corner of the universe while attributing failure; should he run out of elements inside the organisation, he will point to external factors such as markets, regulations, technology and competition to justify why he missed the mark.

The ‘Teflon’ approach is on display while dealing with subordinates too; for example, juniors complaining of poor compensation despite achieving targets, will be convinced that the CFO and the HR department are to blame. 

4. The Headquarters specialist

You will find this manager in an offshore location away from the headquarters. His claim to fame is mastering the art of ‘headquarters management’. The manager couldn't be bothered about trivialities such as poor sales numbers, employee turnover or the fact that competitors have stolen the march over his enterprise.

Instead, he focuses all his time and effort on managing relationships with the who’s who at the headquarters (HQ). He latches onto each and every initiative launched by the HQ, even if it’s not relevant to his office. If you spot a manager who has won accolades for a project on ‘client satisfaction’ at a time when his office has lost clients by the dozens, you've met the quintessential HQ specialist.

5. The ‘Because I Said So’ manager

This one’s my favourite: a manager with the God complex, who would like you to believe that his presence on planet Earth is for the betterment of mankind. In any given situation, his modus operandi is frightfully simple—do what I say, because I said so. In his dealings, there’s no room for inconsequential things such as ideation, reasoning and common sense. Don’t be surprised if he constantly expects you to deliver the most inconceivable results with no resources, and then celebrates every time you fail.

Scratch the surface and you will discover that his driving force is good old fashioned ‘insecurity’. His outward grandstanding notwithstanding, deep inside the manager is acutely aware of his own shortcomings vis-à-vis his subordinates. However instead of utilising a skilled team to his advantage, he chooses to put them down at every given opportunity.

Would you hire ‘Fonzie’ or ‘Richie’?

For followers of the sitcom ‘Happy Days’, the Fonzie-Richie duo is legendary. As similar as chalk and cheese, Fonzie is rough around the edges—a greaser who defies convention, he has a mind of his own; he has been on the downside of luck and yet beaten the odds. On the other hand, Richie is clean-cut and straight as an arrow; he has been sheltered by his loving family and will predictably play by the book. Despite their contrasting personalities, not only are they best buddies, but they always come through.

Here’s a question—if you were hiring, would you pick Fonzie or Richie? Over the years, I have often seen candidates in the Richie mould enjoy an edge over those in the Fonzie mould. An oft-repeated argument is that a Fonzie won’t make a good team player; his personality—opinionated and willingness to challenge status-quo—makes him a bad team player. Conversely, a Richie who is conforming and easy-going is seen as a safer bet. Perhaps there is some merit in that argument. But is that always true, or is there more to it than meets the eye?

An unpleasant truth is that several managers dislike dissenting opinions. A contrasting view (from a subordinate) which may potentially benefit the organisation could be shot down, because the manager believes that his authority has been challenged. Insecurity of being upstaged by a junior stalks and in turn, influences the actions of many managers. Admittedly, the organisation’s culture is an aspect too—some workplaces thrive on a familial structure wherein honchos are deemed to know what is best and juniors are simply expected to toe the line. It should come as no surprise if such entities always pick a Richie over a Fonzie.

However, should that approach be universally adopted? In an ever-changing and increasingly complex business environment, is it prudent to raise an army of compliant yes-men? What happens when the organisation faces a downturn or say the competition comes snapping at its heels? When the going gets tough, traits such as being driven, out-of-the-box thinking, resilience and courage are worth their weight in gold. Someone who has rolled with the punches is the man for the job. That’s when a Fonzie is better equipped to deliver over a Richie. For those who believe that a skilled manager is all it takes, think again. Even the best of plans (made by a manager) can be rendered useless due to poor execution (by subordinates who can’t rise to the occasion).

Like most things in life, I don’t think there is an unambiguous, ‘one-size-fits-all’ answer to the Fonzie versus Richie debate. But it is patently ridiculous that biases and insecurities result in organisations and managers inflicting damage on themselves. There has rarely been a greater need for a blinkers-off approach while hiring. As in ‘Happy Days’ itself, perhaps there is a case for Fonzies and Richies co-existing and driving the organisation’s success. To quote Fonzie—Ayyy!

Beware of investment advice which reads...

Markets are in a celebratory mood. Election results not only met but surpassed expectations with the BJP-led NDA gaining a thumping majority. With markets surging northwards, it comes as no surprise that the performance of mutual funds has started looking up too. Pick up any business daily, and you are likely to find articles extolling virtues of mutual funds, discussing their performance and favoured investment areas. And then, there are experts dishing out advice on what investors must do. While some of the advice is sage, there is also a lot of rather disconcerting advice doing the rounds. I have chosen three pieces of investment advice which are at best half-truths, and at worst completely incorrect.

1. Dynamic bond funds work like a silver bullet

Will the RBI governor cut rates in the forthcoming monetary policy review or won't he? That seems to be the million dollar question at the moment. And this in turn, has led to a lot of discussion regarding dynamic bond funds. Simply put, the latter have a fluid investment style wherein the manager takes active duration bets, based on his assessment of where interest rates are headed. The manager's flexibility to position the portfolio across the yield curve is seen as a silver bullet. Sadly, there is a difference between plying a flexible approach and being successful at it. There are enough instances of even skilled bond fund managers woefully misreading the direction of interest rates. 

A case in point was mid-2013 when RBI's steps to bolster the weakening rupee spooked debt markets; at a time when consensus suggested that rates would soften, they rose sharply. As a result, several managers who had positioned their bond fund portfolios for a softer interest rate regime were caught on the wrong foot. Don't get me wrong--I'm not suggesting that dynamic bond funds are without merit. All I'm saying is: don't think of them as a magic potion for all woes. Even conventional short-term bond funds (which admittedly operate in a narrower band of say one-three years) are capable of adding value to the portfolio. Don't dismiss seemingly plain-vanilla products (read short-term bond funds) in favour of dynamic bond based on a misconception.

2. If the manager follows a consistent approach, the fund will perform

To be fair, a consistently plied approach is a positive as it infuses predictability. But to suggest that the same in isolation is a surefire recipe for success is naive. It takes a lot more for the fund to succeed. To begin with, it helps to have a skilled portfolio manager who is playing to his strengths. As for the process, it needs to be a robust one which is executed with skill. 

To better understand this, consider a process that relies heavily on making the most of mispricing opportunities between the cash and derivatives markets, or one that results in a substantial structural bias for certain stocks/sectors, or one that relies solely on momentum to deliver. These are examples of processes that aren't inherently robust, and ones that will succeed only in specific market conditions. Their consistent application won't automatically make the fund better equipped to deliver. Execution is no less important: consider a process which is rooted in valuation-consciousness and a long-term orientation. The robustness of the process notwithstanding, should the manager keep getting snared in value traps due to poor execution, the consistent approach is likely to be of little help.

3. Evaluate funds based on their holding pattern in top 10 gaining stocks

This one's rather bizarre. If it wasn't bad enough that investors were being misled to evaluate the performance of equity funds over shorter time periods like 1-year and 3-years (with scant regard for the risk-adjusted return showing), now apparently whether or not the manager was invested in the top 10 gaining stocks is a parameter to consider. To my mind, this demonstrates a poor understanding of both--the working of a mutual fund and what one must expect from it.

Funds are run based on their investment mandate and the manager's investment philosophy. A number of parameters such as market capitalisation, nature and quality of business, and valuations, among several others come into play. An investment universe is drawn out and stocks chosen from therein. Though it would certainly help if the best performing stocks were to feature in the manager's picks, it is certainly not obligatory. Let's not forget that in a sharp market upturn, it is often speculative, high-beta fare that fares the best. And the latter need not be the kind of stocks that every manager wishes to invest in. 

Broadly speaking, the test of a manager and his strategy should be the ability to score over the fund's benchmark index and comparable peers over longer time frames (read at least five years) across the return and risk-adjusted return parameters. Whether or not the manager is invested in the top 10 stocks is of no consequence.

In conclusion, there’s a lot of investment advice available in public domain. Investors on their part would do well to be discerning and act on advice that is apt for them.