Folly of Measuring, Evaluating and then Consulting

I have recently attended a presentation by a brand consultant who graduated from a highly ranked western Business School and during the presentation boasted on his decision to decide working in Asia where he can work actively to spur growth of Asian Brands into “successful” brands like Nike and Apple. He started the presentation with a note emphasizing on scarcity of leading Asian brands among fortune 500 list and counted a few “successful” Asian brands like Samsung and Sony to highlight the dearth of similar brands in Asia.

This presentation was organized as a part of Marketing Management course for MBA students and MDM (Master in Development Management) students were invited as guests. Sitting in the last row helped me not only in listening and thinking about presentation but also in observing the happenings in room during the presentation. I like last row as a teacher (as opposed to first row that disconnects one from all who are sitting behind).

As an academic (who are generally blamed as having lack of practical knowledge and wit for applying theories), I was wondering on the premises and frameworks of the consultant. I carefully concentrated on his hypotheses, theories and models he was using in his arguments. (Actually, academics are not inexperienced in practice, but they love to analyze all aspects of theories and practice with critical perspectives and persons like me love to do that as compared to just start applying anything blindly or in haste!)

The reason I have emphasized on the term success in the first paragraph of this writing is to highlight it because this term was the yardstick of all the premises and keystone of frameworks used by the consultant. For the argument that Asian brands are not as successful as western brands, we need to first ask the question – What is the meaning of success? We tend to forget the context due to influence of “seemingly successful” theories and examples from west who created lists like fortune 500 and hundreds of theories in marketing and business management using their own context and perspectives.

One point that I like in the initial part of his presentation is about habit of Asians to consider anything originated from west as ‘superior’ to Asian products. And, this seems to be true. Expanding it further, we Asians have also started liking and using the western ideas, theories and perspectives while forgetting our context. That’s why, the yardstick “success” that may be seen as an outcome is easily adopted by Asians as a valid criteria of measurement too.

After the presentation, I was expecting that at least one student will ask about the meaning of “success” as implied by the presenter. As Asians, do we really think that being in Fortune 500 list is the only “success” for the brand? A brand like Creative that produced portable music system (like ipod) was compared during the presentation with Apple. Creative was labelled as a failure against Apple because the whole world is aware about ipod (even I wrote “music system like ipod” in the previous sentence). I was wondering what might happen if companies like Creative become like Apple. (Well, this assumption is already faulty because I have ignored the context already. Apple is situated in US with particular setting of geography, economics, politics, technology, culture and demographics and Creative is situated in another setting. But for the time being like the consultant did, let us forget the context foe some time). If Creative becomes Apple, there will be an impact on all its operational costs that includes marketing operations. It may lead to increase in price of the products by Creative. Now, we need to ask, are the target markets of Creative and Apple products same? How many of those who purchase Creative products will ever purchase an Apple product or vice-versa? We know the answer. If Creative becomes Apple, who will become Creative? And if there is no Creative, how will their target markets get the products? One may argue that any other company may become Creative after seeing the gap in market. But, then that company may be measured against Creative or Apple and another consultant may try to justify the failure of that company of not being able to act like Creative. Are you able to see the loop? And, this indicates the folly of consultants and many practitioners.

In addition, a major chunk of business men in Asia and Asian managers are already exposed to western theories and frameworks which are considered universal. I doubt about the existence of anything as “universal” except the term itself. Management is about knowing the context first. We also teach our students the importance of External and Internal analyses. And, I always emphasize that internal analyses is as important as external analyses. It means the peculiarities of a company, culture of the community and environment of the setting where the company is situated is of utmost importance.

The moment we forget the context and start measuring the actions and results on a criteria that seems ‘universal’ like being in Fortune 500, we get diverted from the reality. Why businesses exist? To be in Fortune 500? Why brands exist? To be in Fortune 500? Or, being in any list like Fortune 500 is a byproduct? And, why only Fortune 500? Why not Social 500? Environmental 500? Caring 500? Employer 500? Sustainable 500? Innovative 500? (It is another argument when we discuss why all the companies in Fortune 500 do not remain consistently there).

One can argue that all the lists suggested above will lead to financial success ultimately. The folly of this argument is the thinking that ultimate destination/success is the financial success. And, this leads to definition of “success”. Is there any universal definition of success? Do Asian Businesses strive to be financially success in the same manner as western businesses? These led to further questions in my mind when I was listening the presentation.

As an academic I was questioning his premises and frameworks and at the same time some research questions were being developed inside my academic brain. For many practitioners, the presentation was great and was very insightful. Well, it was insightful for me too, but in another way – how a practitioner – a consultant from west is trying to convince Asian businesses about the measurement of success of Asian brands based on western concepts of Brand Equity and inclusion in Fortune 500 list. And, he has been successful up to some extent. He was able to influence most of the young minds of MBA students and most of the application oriented minds of practice oriented faculty members, but I noticed the discomfort among MDM students during the presentation (II could notice them because I was sitting in back). For my academic mind, if arguments lack context and the so called management frameworks do not include basic conceptual nuances in such a manner that it immediately becomes applicable to the field of “Management” as such that can be applied to fields like managing the society, managing the family, managing the community and managing the business, it starts escaping from my whole hearted and brained acceptance. And, this may also explain the reason that MDM students were not able to relate to the presentation much.

Do we have alternatives? May be not much. I was influenced with some points in presentation. How much it is important to “Care why”, as compared to “Know what” “Know how” and “Know why” in a job. The problem is this “Care Why” is missing from management education among Asians. As mentioned by the presenter, we accept western products blindly. Yes, we have been accepting western management ideas and frameworks blindly. And this will continue unless there are academics and teachers enough in number who start caring why - questioning, analyze theories critically and developing the students capability to emphasize on context, different perspectives in depth, and let them construct their own learning while building their own models and frameworks. I doubt we are doing this in Asia. But, west have been successful in doing this and that’ why we prefer to read Porter and not the work of Sun Tzu. And, there may not be any harm in this in a long run. We are already moving to era of convergence where our views and ideas are also converging to the dominant views and ideas. But, there will always be an “academic” sitting in the last row of presentations wondering on ideas of presenter, critically analyzing arguments and highlighting follies later.

Letter to Students: Specially for smart readers.

Please do not complain…there is ‘no problem’ with ‘education’

Statutory warning: If you read this letter and get offended, I will not be considered responsible for it because I have told you to be a smart reader in the letter itself. If you think that you can be easily offended, please ignore this letter.

This seems to be a perpetual question that appears every now and then and the issue is refueled when you cite so called successful college drop-outs like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. It is our tendency to focus on success (and who defines success?) and ignore failures (again, who defines failure?), otherwise you would have cited millions of other college drop-outs who are not so successful in the eyes of our (read ‘your’) perceived society.

Let me present some of my views on what you are gaining through higher education.

1.  A highly structured and directive learning

The education in higher institutes tend to be so directive and structured (thanks to accreditation agencies and regulators), that it frames your minds, conditions your thinking and frames your intellect. Wait a minute…does it appear negative to you? Come on…do you not agree that If you do not demonstrate specified learning objectives set for the course by the faculty, you will not get any credit and will be labelled as a failure in a particular course. Believe me there is no problem, this situation will continue unless you assert …wait professor…I do not like these learning objectives…why should I achieve these? I have not developed these for my learning. Your faculty developed these without asking me. But are you enrolled in higher education institutes by paying a hefty fee to develop learning objectives? No…come on….leave it to us…just follow what we give to you. Do not take the ‘extra’ pain…no need.

Ignore this part – ‘it is too verbose’: you are a smart reader – are not you? Well, the real problem lies not in students’ failure to demonstrate the achievement of specified objectives, but in fixed and specified learning objectives developed by so called intellectuals and imposed on students with the expectation that they will take an ownership of these objectives. Are academicians justified with the expectation of ownership of learning by students? The problem is that students are expected to take something designed by others. And, that’s why they just take it. The relationship between students and teachers is like giver and taker. The teachers give so called knowledge to students and students take it. This is evident when educational researchers found that most of the students use a strategic learning approach to get the degree and they get it. Or they just learn what they are taught.

Oh! Did you read the above paragraph? So, where is the problem? No problem at all. Are you not happy with the structured and directive learning? Are not you comfortable because you know that you will fit well in this world, earn good amount of money and will be termed as successful in eyes of others (which reflects your vision too!) with the ‘training’ you are receiving in higher ‘education’ institutes?

2.  A degree

Let me tell you a story…you love stories…don’t you? Origin of universities -  The institution called ‘universities’ were not set up by intellectuals to teach students in order to frame and condition their minds according to the perceived needs of society. The first universities came into being from students who formed community for their own learning and they used to hire and fire faculty members. They used to have full ownership of learning. This situation changed when universities started providing degrees. The moment the degree granting practice started, faculty became more powerful than students’ community and started dictating the terms. It means that the faculty under the influence of those who fund them started deciding what to teach, how to teach, what not to teach and how not to teach.

But, why should you care? There is no problem…just ignore the above paragraph… do you not want to be rich to fund universities in future? A ‘successful’ and rich business man who need ‘trained’ students to work in your company or further your ‘business’ ‘your way’? So…where is the problem? No problem at all.

3. Higher education or training

There is a plethora of articles on difference between education and training in internet. One Google search is enough to find the difference. But, wait…..how to search in Google is training and how to interpret and use the results (and how not to!) and how to apply learning from this practice in your life is education. In simple words, training provides skills which are necessary to perform a task and education provides wisdom to decide whether you need such a training or not. The problem is that most of the academics know the difference but, in most educational institutes, we provide training to equip students for the ‘real’ world. And this real world is what we tell you, instead of you making your own sense of world. Wait a minute…how can you students with no expertise can make meanings unless we teach you how to do this too... If you start making free will meanings then it will create problem to our community of educators and experts. If you act as experts who will give importance to our expertise we earned after so much investment in our ‘education’? We need to carry on with our ‘tradition’. We should never lose our power… And, this is the reason, the structured and directive teaching is designed with the power of providing degree and credit so that the learning is proved as assured according to what is specified by us….the powerful faculty.

Wait… did you read the above paragraph too? If yes, you are not smart! Believe me there is no problem that is evident anywhere.

The problem appears when we try to use a critical approach. And, I have noticed in my 10 years of experience in academics that the critical thinking is lacking among so called intellectuals and students in the present era. The reason is our conditioned mind that accepts everything that is presented to us.

Don’t you seek structures, definitions, clear instructions, frameworks, concepts developed by others? Do you challenge existing definition, frameworks and concepts? Don’t you love to hear stories of so called expert practitioners and researchers/academics who provide their subjective knowledge as the ultimate knowledge to you well-structured in a spoon…sorry ‘spoon’ is taboo..? Let me use another word….fill your ‘empty’ glass of knowledge with our ‘wisdom’. Are you not happy with whatever so called experts tell (well sometimes after little challenge from you but eventually you give up!)…you love downloading the knowledge…from our minds to your mind in a directive, straight forward manner or sometimes indirectly from so called teaching and learning tools like cases, projects, lectures etc. (as education is a task and we need tools to make it easy to complete)! using established frameworks and concepts, we tell and you accept what is acceptable in the world and what is not, and how the world works and how you should work and behave. Don’t you see us as knowledge providers? No need to change the status quo. Let us enjoy the power and prestige in such a relationship. You should always feel that you are not knowledgeable enough, lack experience and expertise (and thus lack confidence!) After all you are students! Have you seen any faculty member who ask you to develop your own frameworks, your own concepts and definitions instead of applying the existing ones? (And if your answer is yes, ignore such a crazy professor…he is fake….he has no ‘knowledge’ to ‘give’ it to you!)

Ignore next paragraph too – remember – smart reading!

The real challenge for educators in this era is to instill in students the confidence and habit of critical thinking. Do academics have guts to tell students that whatever they are being told includes few subjective perspectives and not complete knowledge because the real learning and knowledge cannot get transferred from experts and cannot be downloaded in mind. Can we tell them that they are in fact receiving training in so called educational institutes so that they can get fit into the world (like cogs in a wheel/bricks in a wall – courtesy to Pink Floyd! Let us be happy…do students really understand the meaning of the Pink Floyd song?) My view is that the real education is there where students no longer depend on degrees, universities and teachers. Students design their own learning needs, find their own resources for learning, evaluate themselves or among peers, listen to all practitioners and researchers, but acknowledge that OK it is their perspective, their experience, their learning and their views, but we as students need to construct our own learning by freeing from existing frameworks and definitions. Of course, it first requires understanding the existing concepts and frameworks, otherwise how can one make herself free if she does not know properly the shackles binding her.

Did you read above paragraph too? You are not so smart. If you really think that you have received real education or if you think there is no way you can get the real education in universities, the best you can get is just training and you are educated enough to know that you do not need this training in the name of education, because you know how to self-learn independently and for life-long duration (and a high paying occupation for yourself)! It is better to drop-out before your minds also gets conditioned permanently. Or, ask from your professors…OK prof…this is what you told us/books mention/experts recommend about this…. But let me tell you how I constructed my learning from various resources and inputs and believe me more than half of what you told me is really bull sh…! Wait a minute…how can you talk to your professor like this…you do need to pass, don’t you? But, do you at least feel this?

True education provides capability of independent and lifelong self-learning. Wait! What I mentioned? Self-learning? Imagine if students are so much educated and developed in high schools that they do not need degrees and universities’ for further learning. Will it not change many things in this world? Now, it is a problem… How the universities will survive then? And wait a minute….I forgot I am a faculty member too! I should stop writing now…it is becoming dangerous! Go back to your class….listen to your professors…..find a good job or start a business and be ‘successful’ and yes, ignore this letter please! I am sure you will read this last paragraph…smart readers!