#717
My view to a tweet by an American Manager on X. ( I have to agree with 90% of his views as a Global operations manager, having interacted with folks in 25 countries for delivering results over a period of 12 years!).
In the interconnected world of global business, cultural differences often emerge as silent barriers to productivity and harmony. A recent discourse sparked by a provocative X post from an American user, amplified by reflections from an Indian global manager with two decades of experience across 25 countries, underscores persistent tensions. The original tweet lambasted Indians as "the single most disagreeable ethnic group," citing deceit, low IQ, poor hygiene, and a paradoxical national pride amid mass emigration. While hyperbolic and stereotypical, the manager—identifying as culturally 75% aligned with Western mindsets—grudgingly concurred with 90% of it, drawing from personal frustrations in managing Indian teams. These included missed deadlines, casual attitudes, unpredictability, lack of prior notifications, and an entitlement mentality that made collaboration challenging. This led the manager to minimize Indian involvement in projects to just 5%, favoring non-Indian or non-Asian oversight for smoother operations. Such anecdotes invite a deeper exploration: why do these patterns persist, and what do they reveal about Indian work culture's adaptation—or lack thereof—in international arenas?
The frustrations articulated in the tweet and the manager's response are not isolated rants but echo broader patterns documented in cross-cultural management studies. Indian professionals often operate within a "polychronic" framework, where time is elastic, and interpersonal relationships overshadow strict schedules. This cultural orientation, prevalent in many South Asian contexts, contrasts with the "monochronic" precision of Western or East Asian workplaces, where deadlines symbolize reliability and respect. As a result, global managers frequently report delays and inconsistencies when working with Indian counterparts. For instance, in multinational corporations, Indian branches are critiqued for extending timelines without notice, fostering perceptions of unreliability. These issues are compounded by hierarchical structures that discourage direct communication; employees may overcommit to preserve "face" or avoid confrontation, leading to unfulfilled promises and sudden shifts.
Historical and socioeconomic factors deepen these challenges. India's colonial past instilled a survivalist ethos, epitomized by "jugaad"—clever, improvised solutions that prioritize quick fixes over meticulous planning. This ingenuity, while admirable in resource-scarce environments, translates poorly to structured global settings, where predictability is paramount. Post-independence bureaucracy, riddled with red tape, has further normalized a casual disregard for timelines, as systemic inefficiencies breed apathy toward formal processes. Education systems, focused on rote memorization rather than critical thinking or accountability, exacerbate this, producing graduates who excel in theoretical knowledge but falter in proactive execution. In overpopulated job markets, an entitlement mentality emerges from scarcity, where "chalaki" (cunning evasion) becomes a tool for advancement, normalizing behaviors perceived as deceptive abroad.
Public forums like X amplify these critiques, with users sharing anecdotes of inefficiency in Indian-led teams. One Silicon Valley hiring manager described tasks taking disproportionately longer in Indian offices due to absenteeism and unprofessionalism in labor-intensive roles. Another thread highlighted "face time" over output, where long hours mask low productivity, contributing to burnout without commensurate results. Debates around H-1B visas in the U.S. often invoke a "cultural compatibility gap," where Indian / South Asian immigrants struggle with Western norms of individual responsibility and forthrightness, fueling stereotypes of fraud or underperformance. Yet, this narrative is nuanced; Indian teams thrive in collaborative, relationship-driven environments, fostering innovation through strong bonds. Younger professionals, especially Gen Z, are challenging these norms, advocating for work-life balance and rejecting no-notice changes.
The tweet's harsher accusations merit scrutiny against evolving realities. Claims of inherent deceit stem from low-trust societal dynamics, where poverty and corruption incentivize self-preservation tactics like doubling down on errors to evade shame. This isn't biological but environmental, as global trust indices rank India low due to systemic issues. The cited national IQ of 76 is outdated and contested; recent 2025 estimates, accounting for improved nutrition and education, place it around 85-90, with regional variations (e.g., higher in states like Kerala). These figures reflect developmental hurdles like malnutrition, not innate deficits, and are rising with socioeconomic progress.
Hygiene critiques, such as open defecation affecting 300 million, are similarly antiquated. By late 2025, initiatives like Swachh Bharat have reduced this to under 5% of the population (approximately 70 million, mostly rural), with urban sanitation nearing 100% coverage. Dietary and personal habits vary, and while cultural practices may clash with Western standards, they are not universally "disgusting" but context-specific. The paradox of glorifying India while emigrating reflects aspirational migration; brain drain is driven by opportunities, yet nationalist pride persists, sometimes manifesting as contempt for host nations. This "ethno-brainwashing," as the tweet calls it, is amplified by media but not unique—many diasporas exhibit similar dualities.
Comparisons to the Chinese, as pondered by the manager, illuminate why Indians face more scrutiny despite shared traits like crookedness and cunningness. China's work ethic, shaped by communist discipline, emphasizes collective efficiency and long hours under top-down control, minimizing unpredictability. In contrast, India's democratic individualism allows for more flexibility, often perceived as laxity. Chinese professionals integrate quietly in global roles, focusing on economic output without the "tribal" networking seen in Indian tech communities. China's faster poverty reduction has curbed survivalist behaviors, while India's inequalities perpetuate them. Nonetheless, Chinese face their own stereotypes, such as authoritarian conformity, but their global image leans toward "efficient" rather than "unreliable." Yes, the manager is of the view that unless you heard a "YES" loudly; any other equivalent word is an indirect NO in China and don't bet on getting results.
Progress is underway in urban, tech-savvy sectors, where international exposure cultivates reliability. Successful Indian-led firms abroad demonstrate adaptability, blending "jugaad" with structure. Solutions lie in fostering high-trust environments through direct feedback and training, reforming education for ownership, and encouraging cultural evolution among youth. Global teams benefit from mutual adaptation—Western rigidity meeting Indian relational warmth.
In essence, the realities of Indian professionals "not shaping up" in work situations stem from a confluence of cultural polychronism, historical legacies, and systemic gaps, not immutable flaws. As globalization intensifies, self-reflection and reform can bridge these divides, turning frustrations into opportunities for hybrid excellence. The manager's journey—from exasperation to strategic minimization—mirrors a broader call for change, reminding us that cultural friction, when addressed, fuels innovation rather than division.
What do you think? Let me know your thoughts in comments or send a message!!!
Karthik
26/12/25
930am.
No comments:
Post a Comment