From June 2013 to January 2015, I was assigned to Bangalore, India.
I have written down some memories of that time.

■India notes: English proficiency can be a source of misunderstanding.

I will write about this little by little, based on my experiences in India.
This is an example of how English proficiency can lead to misunderstandings.

In communication between Indians and Japanese, English is mainly used.
There are Indians who can speak Japanese, but the number is not that large yet.
Language ability itself is not a major obstacle as long as it involves technical matters, but as you know, the English proficiency of Japanese people is not high, so problems arise beyond language ability.
First, this barrier must be overcome for Indians to listen to what Japanese people have to say.

In the company I used to work for, this happened almost every time, about 90% of the time.
I feel that this percentage is too high, so it might have been a problem specific to that company.

First, Indians tend to judge people based on their position.
When people come from Japan, they may be technically superior but do not have a position.
In such cases, Indians basically do not deal with those people.
They almost completely ignore key personnel.
Japanese companies do not necessarily give positions to people just because they are key personnel.
This attitude of Indians bothers Japanese people... But that's aside.

Even in such situations, Indians try to communicate.
However, because Indians' English is accented and unfamiliar to Japanese people, they often have to ask them to repeat themselves.
As a result, even if they don't fully understand, Japanese people often say "yes, yes" or ask various questions because they don't understand.

At this point, Indians think:
"These Japanese people are so technically incompetent. We are the best."

Japanese people don't understand the language, so their technical ability is irrelevant, but Indians think they are communicating.
This is where what Professor Yōro Mōji calls the "wall of stupidity" arises.

At this point, Indians have judged that the Japanese person's technical ability is low (even though they are actually key personnel), so they stop listening seriously to what the Japanese person has to say.
Even when a Japanese person finally speaks up, they are treated with an attitude of "hmpf" and are treated arrogantly.
This "arrogant" attitude is the key.
Once Indians think that someone is below them, they tend to act arrogantly.
It is understandable why Indians are disliked.

Indians often respond with an attitude of "fufu" and say, "Okay, okay. I understand," but later, bugs appear in that section. They haven't properly understood, and they think, "I understand what this person is saying. It's okay, leave it to me." Even when bugs occur, they don't reflect. They try to cover up their responsibility. When you point things out, they become defensive and react angrily, saying, "You're being noisy." Indians only listen to people who are higher in rank than them. They judge whether something is correct based on rank, not on the content. Everything the boss says is correct. This "yes-man" nature is far more extreme than that of Japanese "yes-men." Japanese "yes-men" might not even be considered "yes-men" in India.

As a result, software is created through various processes, but because it's made in such a state, Indians are unable to gather even the smallest requirements, and most of the time, strange software is created.

As mentioned above, even when Japanese people clearly point out important points, Indians often ignore them, saying, "What's that? So what?" Later, when they say, "I told you to do it this way," the response is always, "I didn't hear it." Because the feedback was verbal, they believe they can get away with anything they say. They believe that if something is pointed out verbally, they can say, "I didn't hear it" and it's completely acceptable, and they genuinely believe it. Not only that, but they believe they can say anything verbally. That's why they don't try to leave evidence in emails. They don't try to keep detailed records in Excel sheets. They don't try to leave evidence of the "basis" on which the software was created. In the worst cases, they lie, remembering things but having no evidence, and they try to cover it up with a "smirky" smile. Because they don't leave evidence, they believe they are not responsible. On the other hand, no matter how much you point things out, Indians are inherently bad at management. They have a nature that is not suited for management, and they constantly have a motivation to not want to manage or be managed. They are basically a careless people who don't try to create a framework, but simply combine things, and they say, "If a problem arises, we can deal with it then. It's a waste of time to think about things before problems occur." They neglect important "design/planning" for the software.

Ultimately, Indian people will judge that "it's not their fault, but the fault of the Japanese people who didn't manage things properly." This may sound like a joke. They think that if something doesn't go well, it's not their responsibility, but the responsibility of the boss who didn't manage it properly. They think that it's the boss's role to meticulously define the framework and break it down into details until they can execute it. They think that people who can't break things down into details are not competent. On the other hand, criticisms from Japanese people who are not their bosses are not constraints, but merely options, and they don't think it's their responsibility. Ultimately, they think, "I am perfect, and I am not responsible."

This feeling of "not being responsible" is 100% "serious." Indian people genuinely believe this. They believe that their technical skills are far superior to those of the Japanese, and that the reason Japanese people don't understand them is because Japanese people's technical skills are insufficient. Therefore, they genuinely think that Japanese people don't know anything. Cases where they can overcome the "wall of stupidity" are "rare."

Ultimately, Japanese people become exhausted by such Indian people and judge, "Indian people are of poor quality, careless, and have low technical skills. They don't listen to us, and they are arrogant and selfish people."
On the other hand, as mentioned above, Indian people judge, "We don't succeed because Japanese people don't create specifications properly, so we are not at fault, and we are perfect."

In most cases, this stalemate continues. In about 90% of cases, this is what happens.

It only works well in rare cases. Perhaps about 10%.



The key to overcoming this challenge lies in one of the following:
・For Japanese people to improve their English skills, become accustomed to Indian English, and instantly understand Indian English. This will be difficult to achieve immediately.
・For Indian people to understand Japanese people and patiently work with them, even if they don't have strong English skills. This is unlikely, as Indian people tend to be very confident.

The former requires a TOEIC score of 860 or higher, familiarity with Indian English, and technical skills.
The latter is initially almost impossible and will require time. There is potential if we can recruit experienced individuals from other companies who have developed such flexibility, or if we can cultivate such qualities in new graduates.

■India memo: Japanese managers/executives who aim for promotion by using India as a topic.

I will write about India little by little, based on my experiences.

This is a continuation from the previous time.

Similar to the situation in the previous time, where there was already a misunderstanding and a so-called "wall of stupidity," and things were already tense, some Japanese managers try to use India as a stepping stone for their own advancement. This accelerates the misunderstandings of the Indian people and worsens the situation.

A common story that I often hear, not just at the company I was at, is as follows:

A Japanese manager establishes an Indian development team and starts development.
The Japanese person in charge of communicating with the Indian team usually struggles, and things often don't go well. However, the Japanese manager portrays it as "working incredibly well." Furthermore, they claim to have "gathered excellent Indian engineers." In projects, Indian people tend to report that "everything is perfect" in the closing stages, but even if there are doubts, people often don't raise objections and simply accept it.

The motives of these Japanese managers are often the following:

- They don't actually understand the details of the development.
- However, they have an MBA, so they have the trust of their superiors.
- They are disliked by their colleagues in the same development department.
- Therefore, they harbor a desire to get revenge on the development department.
- The Japanese manager is isolated in India and needs allies. They exploit the psychology of wanting to "have someone on their side," whether it's an Indian person or anyone else.

As a result, India is portrayed as being wonderful, while the development team struggles.

It is useless to say anything to these types of Japanese managers.
If you raise objections, it only results in your own evaluation being lowered.

They force their subordinates to externally evaluate "Indian people are excellent" by threatening them with their evaluations, and they have actually seen cases where people who don't conform to this are told that "we cannot evaluate people who don't get along with Indian people," and their evaluations are lowered. The victims are the people in charge of development. The manager just needs to say "OK. India is perfect."

These Japanese managers, who are already struggling and isolated in India, are so mentally exhausted that they would become mentally ill if they didn't believe that the Indian development was going well. If anyone objects to this, they unleash a torrent of anger. The subordinates who have experienced this have terrible evaluations. Power harassment is difficult to prove in India, which is far from Japan, and it doesn't get conveyed. These Japanese managers simply dismiss any problems as "no problem" because they believe they are superior.

As a result, the actual situation in India becomes increasingly unclear, and from the perspective of Japan, it becomes "India should be wonderful, but why are the results so terrible?"

Ultimately, managers like this will either be promoted or, if they are executives, they will be recognized for their achievements and receive a retirement bonus before leaving. They will not be responsible for them until the very end.

After doing whatever they want, the result is that the people on the front lines have to struggle.

I have often heard stories like this, and in fact, at the company I used to work for, the responsible manager was praised for "gathering excellent talent in India" and "establishing an excellent development team in India." However, in reality, they were disliked by the development department and were "promoted" (in a sense) to the sales department. I heard that they were the most promoted person among my colleagues, so I suppose they think they "did well." The people in higher positions probably don't understand the actual situation very well. People around me, including the president of a certain company, said, "That person is in sales, but I don't think they are suitable for sales at all." However, the truth is that they were promoted after being driven out of the development department.

The people in India themselves are not concerned about this.

They have a manager who recognizes them as excellent, and that manager has been promoted to department head.

The Indian development team, recognized by such a department head, will become even more confident and believe that they do not need help from Japanese people.

In a situation that was already difficult due to communication gaps, the situation becomes even more confused because there are managers who try to use India to achieve their own promotions.

Japanese people are persistent.

Therefore, even if a person does not want to send work to India, the manager will instruct them to do so, so they have no choice but to send the work.

I saw this in India, but the people in India would say, "We received more work because the previous work was good. We are amazing." Of course, if the person in charge says that, it's understandable, but when a person in a position equivalent to a vice president in India says such things in front of everyone, it makes the people in India even more misunderstand.

As a result, the people in India listen less to what the Japanese people say, and the weight of their own judgments increases.
If the "unfounded confidence" that the people in India originally possess is supported, that unfounded confidence will run rampant.

Then, the Japanese manager mentioned above will evaluate that "India has become independent."

The Japanese development department will become increasingly dissatisfied, saying, "Those Indians are doing whatever they want."
And the results are terrible. There is no room for improvement, but for some reason, only the evaluation of "wonderful" continues to follow.

This situation continues until the Japanese manager is forced out through a promotion.

The moment someone who evaluates poor work as "wonderful" disappears, everything is revealed.
And a "what is going on?" situation unfolds.

All orders are temporarily stopped.

Even when serious issues are revealed, the Indians never take responsibility for their own actions.
They often say that the instructions from the Japanese were bad, or that the specifications originally did not include that.

Because the Indians believe they are excellent and trustworthy, they don't understand what happened with this sudden situation.

There are even talks of withdrawing from India, reducing the Indian development team, etc.

Indian society is a hierarchical society, so they will first try to talk to the Japanese manager.

They treat the Japanese manager with VIP service, taking them to luxurious restaurants and trips when they come to India.

However, in Japan, the final decisions are generally made by those at the lower levels.

Seeing these Indians who only entertain those above them, the desire to leave India accelerates.

For a while, they might recover with such hospitality.

But will the younger generation, who see these entertainments with disdain and are aiming for promotions, sympathize with managers who are being deceived, or who know about it but go along with it? If they sympathize, it's not surprising if someone tries to use that to their advantage and get promoted. It might even seem like an opportunity to them.

As a result, what remains is the corpses of Japanese engineers who have been left behind in the field.

Managers who don't understand the field will only realize the situation when the Japanese engineers are gone and only Indian engineers remain.

"Oh, it was this bad?"

But by that time, it's already too late. The Japanese engineers have already become disillusioned and left.

■Changes in the position of Indian people in development.

In the past, Indian developers were inexpensive, so they primarily served as "coders" who simply created what they were told. They didn't need to think much; they just had to create according to the specified requirements.

Times have changed, and the cost of Indian developers has increased.
Depending on the company, they may even be more expensive than Chinese developers who speak Japanese.
The cost advantage of Indian developers has almost disappeared.

Once the cost advantage is gone, managers and executives are forced to change their perception of them.

In the past: Cheap coders. They create exactly what they are told.
Now: Excellent technicians who can adapt flexibly. The quality is also good. They adhere to quality standards.

Even if managers and executives say that, the mindset of the actual technicians doesn't change that easily.

The technicians themselves continue to operate in the same way:
- If they don't understand something, they blame the person who created the specifications.
- They don't start working until the specifications are provided.

This leads to friction. From the perspective of the client, "These are supposed to be excellent technicians, so what's going on?" Technicians who constantly ask questions are considered "troublesome" by the client, and if they don't justify the price, they are considered "expensive" technicians.

On the other hand, Indian developers have a high degree of self-confidence, so they believe they are excellent no matter what.
They may make various claims, but sometimes those claims are not supported by actual results.

For example, in the situation described above, an Indian developer's definition of "excellence" might be "creating exactly what they are told." However, that's what customers wanted in the past. Now, customers want a more versatile kind of excellence: the ability to adapt to ambiguous specifications, create high-quality products with good maintainability, and provide excellent service.

Indian developers who are still stuck in the old mindset might say, "That's impossible," or "The problem is that Japanese people don't create proper specifications." However, that's the key point of what Japanese customers consider to be excellence. If they cannot meet those expectations, Indian developers need to clearly define what they can and cannot do.

The traditional capabilities of Indian developers are as follows:
- What they can do: They can create exactly what they are told.
- What they cannot do: They cannot supplement ambiguous specifications.

The client's expectations: They want technicians who can not only create exactly what they are told, but also point out errors and supplement ambiguous specifications.

If there is a gap between the client's requirements and the actual situation, it is necessary to bridge that gap.
If it is not possible to meet the requirements, then one should simply settle for "cheap coders."

This may be more of a problem for the individual engineers, but it could also be a problem for the managers/executives.
If managers/executives make promises that cannot be kept and take on work, that is a problem.

A common situation where there is a stalemate in communication is as follows:
Japanese person: Why did this happen? (regarding poor quality, delayed delivery, increased costs, etc.)
Indian person: This is because you did not properly define the specifications. We were doing well.

The Indian person genuinely believes this.
The root cause is the difference in assumptions. The Indian person was only thinking of "doing what was instructed," while the Japanese person was expecting a higher level of quality.

Many Indian people cannot imagine that there are ways of doing things other than what they have done before.
No matter what you say, they will say, "We have been doing things this way all along."

If the boss says so, they will probably listen.

However, as mentioned in the previous topic, if there are managers/executives who do not understand the situation and give their approval ("You are excellent," "You are perfect") for their own advancement, then the Indian people will believe that the way they have been doing things is correct.

Therefore, without deeply considering whether what others are saying is true, they will believe that "the way that Mr./Ms. ○○ approved of is definitely correct," and they will not question their own methods. In extreme cases, they may even say, "Only you are saying such things." Many Japanese people talk among themselves, and even if they talk to Indian people about how "Indian people really don't understand," they may receive the same reaction.

It is possible that many Japanese people are not properly explaining the situation to the Indian people.
Even then, when a few people point it out, they may be told, "Only you are saying such things."

It is sad to see Indian people who do not understand the situation, but it is also sad to see the people who are caught up in it, as they seem like victims.

It is possible that if there were no "schemes" by managers/executives, as mentioned in the previous topic, the Indian people would not be so mistaken, and the situation would be different.

Surely, "the beginning is crucial" for everything.
The fundamental cause is that previous assignees cut corners, "gave up" on the Indian people, and that managers/executives, like in the previous topic, irresponsibly praised Indian people who they didn't understand well, causing them to misunderstand, and didn't properly and persistently point out and guide them.
That's why the subsequent person had to struggle.

■ Japanese presidents/managers who say "It's impossible" and deny reality.

I remembered something, so I'll write about it.

It's subtle whether it was intentional or unintentional, but there was a Japanese president/manager who would do something that would surprise Indians, and when they reported it, they would deny it, saying "That's impossible" or "There's no such thing" (!).

For example, there were times when an Indian person would falsify progress. They would report that something was "finished" even though it wasn't implemented yet, and they would secretly implement it while testing. This would happen individually, but sometimes the team leader would do it openly.

There were times when I pointed it out, but the team leader would smile and say, "It can't be helped," and report it as "finished." I find it incomprehensible that they would do that. Are they thinking that I won't tell anyone? It's a fact checking because I'm watching it, but when I mention it to the president/manager, they deny it, saying "There's no such thing. We're properly."

Because of such Japanese presidents/managers, the next Indian manager who took over also started saying similar things. They would deny it, saying "There's no such thing," or "You're the only one who says that," but even if I provide evidence, they would say "That's annoying. It's a waste of time," or "You're rude," and they wouldn't listen to me.

Even if they were wrong, they wouldn't admit it, and they would try to cover it up. Even if I investigate it thoroughly, they would eventually say, "This is India," and act like it's none of my business.

In the end, if I directly report this to the manager or leader of the Japanese ordering department, they would be furious with the Indian person, and the entire management team of the Indian subsidiary would make a big fuss about it. It's exhausting. Despite repeated warnings, they ignored it, and this is the result. I can't deal with it anymore.

Generally, such reports would sometimes get the Japanese president or Indian manager to treat me as a "traitor." They would say something like, "You need to work for the Indian subsidiary, not for the Japanese headquarters," and recommend compliance violations.

How did this happen? To understand this, you need to understand Indian culture. In India, "If a lie isn't exposed, it's a badge of honor." That's why they lie about progress, and they also falsify their education and work history.

When you hear this, many Japanese people might think, "That's not possible." If you think that, then you're really naive.

Indians are all liars.
People from North India tell obvious lies.
People from South India tell lies that are difficult to detect.

People from North India are hot-tempered and their lies are easily exposed. It's easy to see.
People from South India, even if they seem friendly and approachable, may be liars. It's difficult to tell.

As you get used to it, you can distinguish between the honest smile and the lying smile of people from South India, but... it will be difficult at first.
Normally, you think "they are good people" and can't see through their lies.

Because people with such lying smiles are often managers, they will overlook the lies of their subordinates as a badge of honor.
In the first place, liars should not be managers.

If you can't tell by their faces, there is a simple way to tell.
See if they are kind when there is no benefit to them.
See if their expression is different from usual at that time.
With this, you can usually tell.

If they are rude to people who are not beneficial to them, they just want a position, and once they get a position, they will go wild.
It's a good idea to see how they treat people outside the company.
However, careful people may not show their true nature in front of Japanese people, so this method may not be usable in the end.

There is a reason why lying managers do what they do. If the lies of subordinates are exposed, it will negatively affect the headquarters' impression of India. But lies are even worse. If that person is a manager or a vice president, the company could be shut down, but... Japanese companies seem to be too lenient, so they don't do that. As a result, Indians are taking advantage of it.

Even so, if the quality, cost, and delivery are properly maintained, that's fine. But since they are lying to deliver, the quality may be questionable.

In the end, you have to carefully check everything in detail. However, the root cause of everything is that the Japanese president/manager is being lazy and is in a state of "I've created a good company," and is stopping their thinking. They don't want to see reality. They are trying to convince themselves that because it's supposed to be a good company, it is a good company.

The president/manager says, "Once you decide to believe someone, you must believe them forever," and ends up distorting reality. It is important to report to them, but not to blindly believe them, but it seems that the belief that "I want to believe" or "I must believe" has distorted reality.

However, I don't feel sorry for this former Japanese president because he was suffering from depression.
If he was depressed, he should have been immediately sent back to Japan and not entrusted with the position of president of a local company.
It seems that because he was depressed, he didn't think for himself and believed what he wanted to believe, and mistook it for reality.

I don't need presidents/managers who don't think for themselves.
I don't need presidents/managers who don't act on their own.

The subsequent managers also followed this corporate culture.

They just wait for reports and don't try to see the reality themselves.
Sometimes they receive good reports, but when they receive bad reports, they deny reality by saying, "That's not the case."

This president/manager is the kind of person who, without seeing reality with their own eyes, simply copies and pastes the previous supervisor's evaluation and makes it their own. They probably didn't have the habit of "seeing things firsthand and then thinking about them." Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to make someone else's evaluation their own. Even if they graduated from a good school, I wouldn't want to work under someone who doesn't think for themselves.

The manager who came after them also denies reality by saying, "That's not the case," even after I explain things, so it might be the corporate culture. They cheerfully say, "Is that all?" after denying reality. They seem to think that as long as they deny reality, there are no problems.

It's probably a combination of the inherent qualities of Indian people and the corporate culture of "covering up unpleasant things" that has exacerbated the situation. Three of my superiors' managers have the same tendency to "deny reality," so it's fair to say it's the corporate culture.

In any case, things won't get better unless we work diligently and one by one.
Things won't get better just by pretending.
As a result of people who are good at creating a certain atmosphere being promoted, we ended up in this disastrous situation.

There is no prospect of things getting better anytime soon.

■Technical skills of Indian people working at a certain company.

□The technical staff sent from a certain company are below average in IT skills.
・Their IT level is equivalent to that of small and medium-sized IT companies in Japan.
・People who are not IT specialists are also being sent.
・People who specialize in machinery are also being sent.

□Rumors say there are "very talented IT specialists in India," but I haven't seen any.
・Perhaps they exist in places I don't know about.
・The condition for being sent abroad was "if there are talented Indian people, that's fine," but that condition was not met.
・They are only proud, useless, always acting superior, annoying, think they are excellent, and are probably assigned to "self-proclaimed excellent" Indian people.

Initially, the plan was to "carry out projects together with talented Indian people and transfer Japanese know-how." However, because the "self-proclaimed excellent" Indian people are completely useless, I end up having to do various things. Even so, the Indian people reported to the superiors that they had done everything, and they made completely wrong decisions, so I had to correct them every time.

In this case, they were "self-proclaimed excellent" Indian technical staff.
It's like drawing a losing lottery.
I wonder what my superior saw when they believed in them and sent me there. I'll talk about that later.

□Technically learned nothing.
・If I have to say something, I learned "the quality level of India."
・This will be useful next time when creating products for emerging countries like India.

■How Indians work.

□ Not organizing and tidying up.
Is this a common characteristic in Southeast Asia?
Even when pointed out, they say "It's okay as it is." Because even the leadership class holds this opinion, it's impossible for it to permeate the lower levels. They don't understand that this accumulation leads to a decline in quality. When I say various things, they come back with a nuance like "You should be aware of your position," or "It's already decided."

Therefore, I felt that it was difficult to support the team leader and other members in a vague role like "support" in India.
If I am asked to be assigned there again, I will not accept it in a similar position.
You can only carry out support work if you have a position above the responsible manager and team leader.

□ There are many support staff who are not doing much.
There are many who are just checkers (is this a characteristic of a certain group?).
If the salary is low, it might be acceptable.
It seems that managers are almost unnecessary in a certain company. It seems that only workers are sufficient. It would be more helpful if managers were general employees and wrote code.

□ The responsible manager's priority is not quality, but delivery.
They don't seem to understand much about quality.
Understanding the specifications is necessary for quality (because quality heavily depends on the specifications, even before coding or testing), but they don't seem to understand the specifications very well.
The responsible manager's current job is mainly checking the schedule.
It seems that people who give a good impression are assigned as responsible managers in order to visit the Japanese headquarters (it doesn't seem to be based on ability).
It's easy to work as long as you don't say too much.
It would be troublesome if you misunderstood something and received feedback.
With a manager like that, it would be sufficient to have only cheap checkers.
It seems that only the responsible person is sufficient.
It would be more helpful if managers were general employees and wrote code.

□ What I learned
I learned about the Indians' loose time management.
I learned about the Indians' loose decision-making.
I learned about the Indians' hasty judgments.
If you say it nicely, it's "nimble."
If you say it badly, it's "they don't plan much."
Although a plan is made for projects, it seems that they are not understanding the content and making the plan.

■Indian way of thinking: As long as the result is good, the process doesn't matter.

The principle doesn't matter. Only the result matters.
For example, if I can just get the money, the logic doesn't matter.
It might seem extreme, but it's true.

I told the top manager of HR at a certain company to provide a detailed statement of salary/allowance/tax, and the manager said, "You need to be happy if your monthly salary is fully paid without any shortcomings." Without the context of the surrounding statements, it's difficult to understand, but it's a statement that means, "Don't interfere if your salary is fully paid."

It's a manager's statement that says, "Don't interfere with the principle."
Ultimately, this is how Indians think.
It can be interpreted as abusive/threatening language like, "If you complain, I won't pay you." If I were the boss, I would definitely fire this manager.

In the first place, this story is about the calculation of taxes, so if it's wrong, I would be violating Indian law.
The fact that even if someone says abusive things like, "If you're getting your salary properly, don't interfere with anything else," no one cares about it, seems to be a problem not only for Indians, but also for the Japanese managers who are watching over them.

■There are liars in both North India and South India.

North India is easy to deceive.
South India seems friendly and appears honest, but in reality, they "deceive you skillfully (and subtly)."

In any case, they are still Indian.
If you don't understand, it's better not to trust Indians.
Not everyone is a liar, but the proportion of liars seems to be the same in both North and South India.

When you talk to Japanese people who have been deceived by the smiles of dishonest Indians in South India, they often say, "I don't understand Indian expressions." If that's the case, it's better not to trust Indians.
Even if you don't understand, it's better not to trust Indians just because they are smiling.
If you can't tell, it's better not to trust them.

Some people say, "I decided to trust them, so I will trust them."
In business, speed is important, and it's okay to make decisions even if you don't fully understand.

However, the people I know are "trusting them" and stopping their thinking.
I don't think it's a good idea to stop thinking.

In the first place, the word "decided" lacks "conviction."
If you are aware that you "decided" without truly understanding it yourself, there should be motivation to determine whether that decision was truly correct. However, it seems that a former president of a certain company was not interested in that.

They stopped thinking because they had already made a decision.
Indians are inherently untrustworthy. Even if things seem good at first, it is quite possible for them to do something dishonest later.
They neglected to monitor that.

Eventually, when there was a dispute, they recognized that their subordinates were actually right, but they said, "Because I decided to trust Mr. ○○ Manager, I adopted Mr. ○○ Manager's decision," and defended the dishonest Indian, twisting the truth. And they said that the subordinate who was actually right was "wrong." That's excessive.

As a result, a certain company created a track record that "the boss is right, even if they are a liar."
Mr. ○○ Manager, who thought that his correctness had been proven, accelerated the misunderstanding.

As a result, the subordinate (Indian) who had a conflict at that time changed jobs to a competitor and was promoted to manager, and now seems to be in a pretty good position.
Even though it is obvious to outsiders who was right and more capable, the company lost a talented person because they treated the mistake as correct, and the dishonest manager was promoted.

There are people who lie among Indians, but there are also Indians who are excellent and honest. This is also an example of that.

■ Indians' hasty decisions.

This is not limited to Indians; it may also happen to Japanese people, but the frequency is different.

Here is a specific example:
The manager planned a trip to a resort (although the term "resort" may be misleading) for the day off on the weekend.
The announcement was made 10 days in advance.
If something like this is announced suddenly, some people may already have plans.
As a result, it seems that not many people participated, and an email from the Indian manager, expressing frustration, arrived saying, "What are you all thinking? Leaders and managers should be aware of their position."

For Indians, this may be acceptable.
Moreover, it is incomprehensible how someone can have the nerve to comment on optional weekend events.
A certain Japanese president said, "It's his judgment, so just ignore it."

----
This kind of thing happens frequently in India.
Each individual incident may also occur in Japan, but the frequency is different.

■ Indian people who proceed with work without sharing information.

A team leader who does not share information.
A team leader who cannot understand the specifications.
A team leader who cannot explain the content to the members.
A team leader who assigns tasks to members without understanding the specifications.

Despite this, the person claims to be "extremely excellent." There are times when such individuals, who claim to be excellent or are considered excellent by a small group, appear, and this time it is particularly noticeable.

As a result, numerous members ask "why" questions.
I have seen the Indian team leader answer these questions in a condescending manner.
Why can't they simply answer the questions? Why can't they adopt a way that doesn't tire themselves or those around them?
A better approach would be to disclose the information in advance.
Why can't they do anything other than "assign the task first"?
The crucial element of "explaining" the necessary information is completely lacking.

As a result of repeatedly assigning tasks in an unclear manner, several members have left the company.

Is this "lack of explanation" a company culture, or is it specific to Indians?

When assigning tasks, there is only a schedule, and almost no explanation.
And yet, if there are questions, you are met with the tiring responses mentioned above.

It seems that Indians tend to be authoritarian, and the basic idea that "there is no need to know the background when giving orders" seems to be a common perception among Indians. In software development, it is rare that simply following instructions will produce the desired result; without understanding the background, the outcome can be completely different. There is some truth to the explanation that things failed because they were done in the Indian way in such a field.

■ Indian culture that does not value "freedom."

Freedom is the ability to choose.
However, Indians do not value "freedom" (the ability to choose).

They believe that if everything is commanded and done centrally, everything will go well.

This is not limited to work; it is also the case in private life.

For example, if there is something dangerous, such as riding a bicycle or an auto-rickshaw, they simply prohibit it and end the matter.

They do not value "freedom" and instead "prohibit" things because they are dangerous. If there is even a slight risk, they prohibit everything.

If someone says their car is old and their back hurts, they don't replace it with a different car; instead, they say, "Then don't use it."
Even if the price is the same, they don't try to change it.

Even though it was possible to change to a different car after the contract period of six months, they ignore repeated requests and say, "Be quiet. It's a waste of time to talk. Obey the orders."

This is the Indian way.

If you work under an Indian manager, you should be prepared for this.
Indian managers will "peko peko" (bow deeply) and give VIP treatment to Japanese people who are higher in rank, but they look down on and order Japanese people who are lower in rank.

When I write things like this, some people say, "Not all Indians are like that."
That is true.
I am simply saying that this is what it was like in my environment.

They don't try to make things go smoothly, even if a little "effort" would make it so.
Even though there are various options, they only choose the subtle ones, and they don't try to choose other options. They make the choices themselves and don't allow individuals to choose.

For example, it would be easy to change the car during the next contract period, but they don't try to do that, and they simply force you to use a car that they have arbitrarily decided on.
If you say something about it, they retaliate with power harassment and harass you with a "smirking" expression.

You probably won't experience that "disgusting, condescending gaze" unless you have worked under an Indian manager.
This is because, in most cases, Indians are polite and smiling to people who are higher than them, so they don't usually show that side of themselves.

This attitude wasn't always the case from the beginning.

The attitude of all Indian managers changed instantly when the Japanese president was replaced by an Indian president.
I saw many Indians with faces that said, "We did it," and suppressing the "kukukuku" (evil) laughter.

They were probably waiting for this from the beginning.
And now, they have finally taken over the entire company.
Now that they have it, Japanese people are not needed.
They can just tell them to leave.
Then, they can create convenient power harassment or inconvenient rules and subtly harass Japanese people to make them leave.

On the other hand, they are always dedicated to providing excellent service to Japanese managers and department heads at the headquarters.
In that regard, it is thorough and wonderful (sarcastically).

At the kickoff meeting, the new Indian CEO declared, "This company will now be for Indians, by Indians." This is practically a declaration of victory.

If this company becomes a company for Indians and replaces its practices with Indian ways, then there is no need for "freedom."
Subordinates only need to follow the orders they are given, and that is the Indian way.

Even if this background is not about "freedom" but simply harassment, it is still clear that this Indian person's character is corrupt. Perhaps it is true that Indian culture generally does not place much emphasis on freedom, and this Indian person is adding harassment to that.

Of course, I cannot simply ignore this situation, and there is a possibility that the company will be dissolved or merged, but that is a business decision and will not be mentioned here. It is certainly difficult to proceed because there is often resistance from the Indian CEO and managers.

For your reference, trading companies sometimes dissolve and rebuild companies. Perhaps one of the purposes is to completely eliminate the CEO, managers, and useless employees and transfer the employees and business. Of course, they will not say that openly.

■Past assignees' "abandonment" and its merits and demerits regarding Indian people.

In the past, Japanese people were dispatched to India to set up operations.
I had many opportunities to hear about these experiences, but the past evaluations from many of the dispatched employees were like this:

・Indian people say, "I don't understand. We can't make it with this." and don't cooperate.
・Indian people don't move.
・Because Indian people are not useful, I had no choice but to work hard until late at night to finish the work.
・Japanese people complain about Indian people among themselves. "Indian people are useless."

Because of the attitude of multiple dispatched employees, they sent the wrong message to Indian people:

・Japanese people work diligently and "without complaint" until late at night.

In reality, Japanese people were complaining to each other, but they didn't say it to the Indian people.

However, when I pointed out the problems that past dispatched employees have been saying to the Indian people, the Indian people reacted as if only I were saying something special, saying things like, "That's not true. Only you are saying that." They criticized me, saying, "You are different from other dispatched employees. Your way of working won't work in India."

Wait a minute. The fact that past dispatched employees pointed out various problems is true, and there were actually past dispatched employees who talked badly about Indian people, but they seemed to be on good terms with the Indian people on the surface. If the dispatched employees who were in charge of setting up the organization didn't give important feedback to the Indian people, then they were just stealing salaries.

Instead of accurately conveying the evaluation to the Indian people, past dispatched employees were irresponsibly using Japanese phrases like "Good Job" or "Perfect," which are common Japanese social niceties.

It's not just the dispatched employees; the Japanese managers are also inadequate. They claim to not understand Japanese, but they say "Very Good" in English, which further confuses the Indian people. If a manager from the head office says "Very Good," the Indian people will broadcast it in an all-company email, saying, "Something wonderful has happened." This is because these are just social niceties, not genuine statements. This is also the fault of the Japanese managers who made those easy statements.

Therefore, when I point out the problems, they say, "Only you are saying that. We are doing wonderfully well. Mr. ○○ and Mr. ○○ are praising us." They take the words literally and don't listen.

It seems that Japanese managers and previous assignees did not have high expectations for India, and there were times when they excessively praised people, thinking that they needed to gain confidence and accumulate successful experiences. This habit seems to continue to some extent even now. It's like, "Just praise them."

However, they took this literally and mistakenly believed, "We are already perfect."
They are no longer willing to listen.
It is natural that confident Indians become even more confident and unwilling to listen when they are praised.

However, as they worked on the project and interacted with me, some of them realized, "We Indians are not as good as we thought we were." So, there has been some improvement in that regard. However, it is important to note that while some Indians are willing to accept reality and are humble, others have fundamentally poor minds and cannot accept it.

Furthermore, the previous assignees were in charge of setting up Indian teams, but they may have increased the Indians' misconceptions, which will cause problems for the next person, such as myself. The reason is that the previous assignees consistently said, "Indians are really useless. They are not reliable." Therefore, their comments about Indians became careless.

The following words clearly show how much they gave up.
"Will Indians quit? Indians quit easily. Don't worry about it. Just let it go."
This statement clearly shows how little they expected of Indians and how much they treated them like children.

Excessive praise leads to increased misconceptions, while a lack of praise leads to quitting or abandoning work.
Indeed, it may be possible to get by in the short term by praising people indiscriminately and getting along, but unless we carefully and consistently observe and point out issues, the organization will not improve. The current organization is the result of previous assignees stopping criticism and excessively praising people.

After that, as mentioned before, a Japanese former president/manager who tried to use India to advance his career came and, in order to make it seem like there was a dramatic improvement, he only improved the appearance while the substance was rotten, creating a vicious cycle. There may be a problem with organizations that do not value gradual improvement.

The previous assignees were puzzled, "Why did it improve so dramatically?" However, it was simply because they gave good evaluations while ignoring reality. Because it was not improving at all, the Japanese gave up, and then, for the purpose of career advancement, they were given a false evaluation of "excellent," which increased their confidence despite their actual condition, which was rotten.

If you try to improve something, they deny it by saying "There's nothing wrong," and they believe they are superior. There is no cure for such Indian people.

If you trace back to the root cause, the responsibility lies with the past assignees who "gave up" on improvement. If people had worked diligently, even if Japanese people came to India with the aim of using it as a stepping stone for promotion, the situation might not have become as bad as it is now.

In the first place, it was foreseeable that appointing an Indian person as president would lead to reckless behavior, and I warned a Japanese manager before my assignment. A few years ago, when I said, "If you appoint an Indian person as president, they will go rogue," the response was, "That's okay. Let them go rogue," as if it were someone else's problem. The background to this was probably that the Indian people were not performing well, so before dismissing them, they wanted to let them do whatever they could, even if it was reckless. The nuance behind the above background seemed to me to be, "They are useless anyway, so it might be better to let them do whatever, even if it's reckless, in the hope that things might improve."

Furthermore, when I told a certain manager about various issues, he said, "It's pointless to waste your energy on such trivial things," as if he were not interested at all. He did not understand that the current members who are suffering during their assignment are suffering because managers with authority like him were indifferent. A manager who is even slightly interested would try to understand the situation, but as can be seen from the above statement, he seems to have no interest in it. Such indifferent managers and past assignees have nurtured the current Indian subsidiary.

As a result of everyone giving up, they came to believe that they were perfect. In other words, the Indian subsidiary was treated like a child, and the surroundings praised them for everything they did. Therefore, they thought that their choices were all forgiven. They are not aware that they are still in a probationary period, and they are already convinced of their victory. The former president, who saw this and used it as a stepping stone for his own promotion, gave the "company," which was too much for the Indian people to handle, as a toy. He probably doesn't care what happens to the company after he is promoted. He can say anything. People who will not take care of things until the end, and will not bury the bones, can say anything.

As I have written before, there are many factors that led to this situation, including Japanese former presidents who used Indians as a means to advance their careers, and managers who were aware of the problem but did not stop it, or who had already given up on the Indians.

If one is in a position where they can avoid hardship, they can say anything. If one is in a safe place and simply says what seems reasonable, that is enough. The person in question was able to return to Japan in just three years from India and become a department head, so they are probably satisfied. They probably don't care what happens to the Indian subsidiary. If they don't know the true situation, they are incompetent, so their guilt is light. However, if they know the truth and are lying, they are a truly evil person.

In such an environment, an environment where Indians can do as they please has been created.

However, in the end, it seems that things can only improve to the extent that they can be given freedom.
Furthermore, large-scale measures that are occasionally implemented do not lead to a sudden improvement, and it seems that things will not improve unless we continue to work diligently.

■ Gonyo gonyo gonyo, while making noises and protesting, when the deception succeeds, the Indian person smiles "niya."

When Indians try to cover something up, they always speak very quickly and mumble incessantly. Even when Japanese people try to ask questions, they often continue speaking quickly and repeatedly, interrupting the questions. This rapid speech continues until the Japanese person forgets the initial question.

When the rapid speech confuses the Japanese person, and they show a "hmm?" expression, the Indian person typically smiles "nyah." They are thinking, "I've successfully covered it up," or "Excellent, this is settled," but this is evident from their expression. However, the Indian person believes that this resolves the issue. This expression is unpleasant to watch, but the Indian person believes it is a smile.

Even after smiling "nyah," the Indian person immediately switches to the next topic with rapid speech, or continues to talk rapidly about what they want the Indian person to think.

From the perspective of Japanese people, this person is "useless and incomprehensible." However, from the perspective of the Indian person, "this resolves it." This is an example of an "excellent" Indian person. Covering things up is a common practice in India. They may say "I understand" but then do nothing, or they may say "I will do it" but then do nothing. Speaking rapidly and covering things up is a normal practice in India.

It is better not to promote such suspicious Indian people, but for some reason, the company I was with had many Indian people who only talked, and some of them were promoted. If they become a leader, they will deny bugs and continue to talk rapidly to cover them up. When Japanese people stop responding and say, "What is this person? I'm done with this," they somehow misunderstand this and think, "Excellent, my claim has been recognized," which is a problem.

Japanese people who give up and say, "I'm done" are usually ordering work from Japan. Even if you think you should not order from India, managers often instruct you to use Indian people, so you have no choice but to do so.

The Indian person believes that because the previous explanation was not pursued further, they were successful. Even if Japanese people are doing it reluctantly, thinking, "I have to work with this useless Indian person again," the Indian person believes, "Since this method worked last time, I should do the same thing this time." Whether they covered it up or properly obtained approval is irrelevant to the Indian person. They think that if it was accepted last time, it should be done the same way this time.

In such situations, when an Indian person points out, "This is not the way," the Indian person does not listen and justifies themselves by saying, "We have been doing it this way all along." They seem to have little interest in improvement. They think that as long as they complete the project by the deadline in the way they think is best.

Both previously, currently, and likely in the future, the Indian person does not understand that they are given work because they are perceived as "not good enough."

Even when they are told to improve little by little, if the Indian person's attitude is as stubborn as "We have been doing it this way all along," the Japanese side becomes troubled.

There are two key points:

・The beginning is crucial.
・Incorporating improvement into the schedule in advance.

It seems that Indian people try to create precedents and follow them. They try to get the other party to say "OK," even if it means making things up or tricking them. For them, it's like, "We did it." They don't try to change it afterward. This is their basic attitude.

Therefore, it is crucial to establish a common understanding that "the previous methods are not perfect" beforehand. And, incorporate improvement into the schedule in advance.

However, it is better to assume that Indian people will not readily accept improvements because they have a lot of pride.

If the attitude of not accepting improvements is limited to the lower-level members, that is still acceptable. However, team leaders are openly saying, "Why are the methods we have been using not bad?"

Even if it is just the team leaders, it might be better. However, even managers are openly making such statements.

If it is only a part of the managers, that is acceptable. However, even the top manager in charge of delivery is saying similar things and causing trouble for Japan.

From the Japanese side, the question arises, "Who allowed such a thing?" However, the Indian person does not care. They complain to the ordering party, saying, "The Japanese always make strange requests. Please forgive us. We can't develop anything like that."

This senior manager has a very bad reputation with the Japanese. They try to change the subject and try to cover up the issue by talking a lot. However, it seems that even for the Indian side, they are useful because they can at least deliver the project, even if it is a bad one.

Originally,
People from India who try to cover up problems, no matter how intelligent they are, should not be promoted. They are like cancer.

I'm incredibly curious as to why someone like this is a manager.

There's a background to this.

In the past, the company was not operating well, and there were thoughts of shutting it down. However, as a trial, a few people were made managers, and the idea was to see how much could be achieved with Indian people. Someone who "happened" to be there at that time became a manager, and that person, who was the most articulate among them, has continued to hold the position of senior manager.

In the company, it is common for those who have been there longer to be promoted, regardless of their abilities.
This is a typical example of that.

Even if someone with no ability is in a position of power, the company will not succeed.
This is also a typical example of that.

Most of the managers are almost useless, but there are some who have redeeming qualities for young people.

I think it would be better to temporarily close the company and rebuild it, eliminating all the managers. However, it seems that the Japanese managers don't think so.

Actually, the president also has a similar habit, and I often saw him "smirking," which makes me feel suspicious. However, even so, the president is somewhat understandable, so he is not as much of a "cancer" as the senior manager. However, if I were to give my personal opinion, I don't think someone with a habit of covering things up should be the president. However, the current personnel decisions are not my judgment.

Since I have already left the company, I hope things go well from here.

■ Indian people who say "I will do it" to cover up the situation, but actually do not execute it.

This is also a common occurrence.
In a certain Indian subsidiary where people with only talk and no action became managers and leaders, this is a frequently seen situation.

The Japanese side, even though they are angry inside, rarely express it in words or expressions, so the Indians misunderstand it as "they are skillfully covering it up," and they even believe that they are successful.

Speaking of which, something like this happened.
The quality of the work in India was the worst, and it was a situation where fixing one bug created five new bugs.
To cover this up, the Indian person said, "We will have all the members re-test this weekend and report by next week."

The Japanese side calmed down somewhat with that statement, but because there was no report or anything at all after the weekend, the Japanese side became furious, while the Indian side was relaxed. They didn't understand the situation at all and said, "Why are you so panicked?"

The Japanese side is in a panic, but the Indian side doesn't understand the situation and thinks they are skillfully covering it up.

The Indian person said "we will do it," but in the Indian nuance, "we will try our best to test it. We will try, but of course, there are things we cannot do. But we will try," is the meaning of "we will do it."

And because they couldn't do it, there was no report, that's the situation.

The Japanese side gets angry because the Indian person said "we will do it" but didn't do it, but the Indian side thinks, "Well, we tried and it didn't work, so what's the big deal? Why are you making such a fuss? Japanese people are really noisy. Japanese people are really like that."

From the outside, this may seem like a joke.
Also, for people who don't know Indians, they might think, "That's prejudice. That's not true."
However, this situation is a fact, and if you don't know that Indians have this kind of nature, then you are ignorant.

As an aside, it is reported within the company that Indians work hard.
This means that they work hard until late at night and often come to work on weekends.
On the other hand, Indians also take a lot of breaks.

During the festival season, it is common for them to return to their hometowns to enjoy the festivals and spend time with their families, and take a break of about a week to a maximum of 10 days.
Unexpected breaks (due to illness, errands, etc.) also occur frequently.

Regarding weekend work, I thought, "If I'm working hard, they should at least pay attention to the situation," so I went in on weekends, but often there was no one there, or only a few people. Even those who were there sometimes came in the afternoon or in the evening.
Sometimes, the person who told us to come in on weekends wasn't even there.
No matter how much I reported that I was "working hard on weekends," it didn't reflect the reality.

Considering these things, the reports from Indian people themselves that "Indians work hard" are questionable.
It's meaningless to report based on impressions without properly counting working hours.

...And in that kind of situation, as I mentioned earlier, when I said "Let's test it," the members were in a state of mind like, "Okay, I'll try my best," so in the end, the test couldn't be conducted.

If the test couldn't be conducted, they should just report "It couldn't be done," but they don't even want to report that.
There were times when the Japanese side was left waiting without any report. When I pointed it out, they would make excuses like, "Things that couldn't be done are just not possible," and they don't understand what they need to do. This is the case even for managers and leaders.

This kind of careless handling of things is a microcosm of Indian society.
In Indian society, when you say, "I'll try," it means, "I'll try, but there might be things I can't do. The wind will blow tomorrow, so if you remember and feel like it tomorrow, you can try, but don't worry if you can't do it."
Frankly, that's normal and acceptable in Indian society, but it doesn't work in international business.

When I pointed out these things, Indian managers would say, "This is India," or something like that.
Furthermore, there are Indian managers who are so stubborn that they say, "I'm a manager, so I won't listen to your opinion," meaning they don't think for themselves, don't understand the principles of things, and are rotten.
Even if something doesn't make sense, they think it's valid just because they have the authority to decide it.

When I tell them that these useless and stubborn Indian managers are a cancer and should be fired, the Japanese headquarters doesn't understand.
The headquarters says, "Don't fire them; find other ways," but the headquarters doesn't understand that there's no other way to deal with these stubborn Indian people.

If the managers are at this level, the leaders will follow suit.
It's only a matter of time before the members follow suit as well.

Even if I were to be promoted to a position above manager, the personnel authority is already in the hands of the Indian who is the president of the local subsidiary. This president is a troublesome person, and he says things like, "We want to request personnel from the headquarters to fill the positions that the Indian subsidiary needs." The headquarters side is naturally troubled by these requests. It is natural for people to question why such an Indian, who ignores the headquarters' intentions, was appointed as president. However, it is difficult to dismiss a president who has been appointed, especially since it is an Indian corporation.

Even if a lawsuit were filed to dismiss the president, it would take several years. Moreover, since it is an Indian corporation, there are many cases where the judgment is in favor of the Indian side.

In such a situation, even if young members who have not been influenced by the company culture are taught "the right way," if the managers and leaders are behaving in that way, the young members will question, "Why do we have to do things that way?" This hinders education.

Still, if there were a place with slightly more competent people, this wouldn't happen.

Ultimately, even if the Japanese side is disgusted and projects no longer come, they would say, "Why aren't we getting any work?" In response to that, if I were to tell them the truth (as mentioned above), "You are not trusted because you do not follow what you say," they would get "hurt" and become depressed (laugh). They are probably emotionally immature. They are difficult to deal with.

All I want is for them to fulfill the promises they make. Apparently, this common-sense thing is difficult for Indians.

No matter what the Japanese say, Indians believe that their current way of doing things is correct. In the past, a client gave up and said, "Okay, okay. It's fine like that," and that sloppy way of working remained as an "example," and even when pointed out, they say, "Why can't we do things the way we've always done them?"

Even if I explain it, the managers don't accept it, and the team leaders don't accept it either. "The beginning is crucial," and more importantly, the managers are people who lack the ability to understand and think for themselves, so the conversation doesn't progress at all.

Even when pointed out to the managers, they say, "Because this is India, it won't work if we don't do things the Indian way," or they make statements that seem reasonable, but in reality, they are just sophistry to justify their own poor performance. Such people should not be promoted.

Even if you tell Japanese managers to fire those incompetent managers, those managers are considered "excellent and outstanding" externally because of the "Japanese manager/former president who used false praise of India to promote themselves," as mentioned in a previous topic. Therefore, it's difficult for Japanese managers to understand this easily. They themselves have "endorsement from the former president," so they dismiss criticism with an attitude of "What are you talking about?" and laugh it off.

It seems like a situation where a Japanese manager/former president rose to power through sophistry, and Indian managers are following suit by using sophistry.

It's a frustrating situation.
Ultimately, it's thanks to these Japanese managers/former presidents who use sophistry that the people on the front lines are suffering.

I'm not saying anything complicated.
"Keep the promises you make. If you can't, report it instead of ignoring it."
"Stop using the 'Indian' way of saying 'Let's try.'"
"Stop using the 'Indian' way of saying 'Let's try, and if it doesn't work, just forget about it and don't report it.' You need to change that approach."
I'm just saying these very reasonable things, but apparently, Indians can't understand them.

When these issues come up, Indians tend to make excuses and try to cover up the situation, saying "This is fine." Eventually, they start saying things like "You're being noisy" or "Only you are saying such things."

Many Japanese people are complaining about Indians, saying the same things, but they don't seem to be sharing this information with others. Conversely, important Japanese people use Japanese social niceties to say things like "Yes, yes. You've worked very hard. You've done well," which leads Indians to misunderstand. Indians think, "See, we're amazing. We're excellent," and they proudly talk about it in meetings. However, when you ask those Japanese people, they say, "Indians are terrible."

Another cause of this gap is that, as mentioned in a previous entry, most Japanese people have "given up" on Indians, so they don't want to say anything, which only allows the problem to spread. Many Japanese people think, "If Indians are going to misunderstand, let them do what they want."

In such a situation, when someone like me goes to the local office and points out various issues, I often encounter resistance such as "Why?" or "I've never been told this before," and obvious "frustration."

As I wrote in the previous entry, the misunderstandings of the Indian people have been created by the accumulation of past experiences, including long-term employees, Japanese people who have ordered work from India, and a former president who aimed for promotion by exploiting India. I feel that these misunderstandings have reached a point where they are no longer correctable.

However, it is a good sign that the members who have been working on the project with me have begun to reconsider, "Maybe we Indians are not as good as we thought." Even though it is a good sign, it has been 7 years since the Indian subsidiary was established. It's too late to realize this (laughs).

I can't help but think that the previous employees who went to the local office must have been doing something, considering the current situation.

Many people have been doing the easiest thing, which is "praising."
Praising is appropriate in certain situations.
If you praise after carefully observing, that is good.
However, if you praise blindly, thinking "I don't care anymore," it can lead to an increase in misunderstandings.
Even so, many people think "I don't care about Indians," so they don't even pay attention to it.

And the successor will have to pay for the mistakes of the previous employees, but even if they manage to recover the situation, it may not appear to the surroundings that they have worked with "excellent Indian people," which is a disadvantageous role. In reality, they are trying to improve truly bad Indian people, but if talkative people are saying appropriate things and getting promoted, the organization will only accumulate "fatigue."

I have written a lot, but there are also many Japanese people who can properly assess their subordinates. There are also people who can properly assess the situation, regardless of whether the person is Indian or not.

I am reserving judgment on whether the environment I was in was just a coincidence, or whether this is the case in many situations, because there are few examples. However, at least, many strange things were happening around me.

■Instead of thinking about frameworks that improve quality, people often get stuck on whether something is possible or not.

I have reorganized it as follows:

The focus of the discussion should be on the importance of quality and maintenance, but in reality, Indians often recommend easy methods. They seem to think that "Japanese people who think deeply about even simple things are stupid."

As a result, the quality is low even after the project is completed, and improvements are needed. However, Indian managers are confident and believe that their methods are the best. They do not listen to the opinions of others.

This problem can be attributed to Japanese employees who have given up in the past, and to Japanese ordering departments that did not listen to the evaluations of Indians. Furthermore, the situation has been worsened by a former president who left due to unfounded evaluations.

Thanks to the project leader making appropriate comments, some projects have been salvaged, and the amount of work in India has decreased.

The Indians don't understand the situation, so they say things like, "Why aren't good jobs coming to us?" They're being naive. They don't understand how bad they are, which is why they're not getting jobs.

The people on the front lines are starting to realize that they might not be as good as they thought, but the managers don't seem to understand.

It seems like the managers are judging employees based on their confidence. They're promoting people who are confident, even though it's obvious who is actually good just by looking at them.

A common opinion from Japan is that Indian managers don't understand the situation on the ground.
I agree with that opinion, having been there.

In a company with only about 100 people, they create multiple layers of management, and the Indian managers on top stay in their rooms and don't come out. These Indian managers, who just call other managers to talk down to them, are seen by people in Japan as "not understanding the situation," and that's correct. You can't help but think that if you're not properly observing the situation in a company of only about 100 people, but they seem to ignore such opinions. They seem to think that it's enough to wait for reports.

I've seen a "typical" situation where subordinates' reports are taken at face value, and Indian project operations are said to be going well, while Japanese people are criticized for being bad. As I wrote about in another topic, it's no longer enough to just build something according to the specifications; at this price, if you don't do more upstream work, you'll be considered "useless." Continuing to do things the way they used to be done at a 1/10 of the price will only lead to a loss of trust and fewer jobs.

Furthermore, they even pull out emails and attack specific individuals, saying, "It's their fault." I can't deal with that. There's a "typical" behavior of Indians who ignore the context and take specific sentences out of context, interpret them to suit their own purposes, and claim that they are completely right and the other party is completely wrong.

I think a reset is necessary.
It seems that the situation has been exacerbated because people who became managers simply because they were "the first ones" are having a significant influence.

If they had been properly trained from the beginning, and if they had been people who were raised with the idea that "the beginning is important" when the company was small, then things might be different. However, if they just continued with the "Indian way" of working, it's become something that can't be fixed.

Even so, it's not possible for a company to perfectly train all its employees from the very beginning. In the end, the people hired when the company is small often become useless as the company grows. That's a sad thing.

On the other hand, some people believe that the former president, who used India as a topic to try to advance his career, is the biggest culprit, even though he could have pointed out the problem.

■The elderly prioritize decision-making over understanding.

The older people in India, even if something is logically wrong, will say "It's a decision that's already been made," and won't think about it any further.
They lack the ability to think about the principles of things.

For older people in India, the principles of things are not important.
Therefore, they can make many contradictory judgments without any problem.
They are more rigid than younger people, and it is difficult for them to change their way of thinking.

On the other hand, younger people will honestly ask questions.
Younger people have more redeeming qualities.

However, the younger people with redeeming qualities tend to change jobs frequently, leaving behind only older people who are "good-natured but not very useful."
In a sense, the people who are suitable for Japanese companies are the ones who remain.

...Probably, you won't understand this just by reading it.
The stubbornness of Indian people, or their way of not understanding logic and the principles of things, can only be understood through experience.

There was an Indian manager in the general affairs department who, when I tried to explain something or ask for a reason, would only say "There's no need to explain" or "You're not a manager, are you? Just follow the established procedures."
They would be very polite to the superiors, but they would use their authority to harass the subordinates (the dispatched employees, who are nominally on assignment to a subsidiary).

Even though they could secretly hinder or obstruct work assignments to Indian companies upon my return, they deliberately increased anti-India sentiment. I don't know what their intentions were, but it seemed like they were just a small-minded person who wanted to try out the authority they had for the first time.

However, in general, Indian people tend to be swayed by authority.

Even in development, when given instructions like "Please do this," Indian people don't think about whether it contradicts anything.
Perhaps, if there were more talented Indian people, they would think about it and point out the contradiction. However, the less intelligent Indian people not only don't notice the contradiction, but even when told "This won't work because of this," they become stubborn and say "Why is that not okay?" and don't understand even when the reason is explained.
People who lack the ability to understand are in leadership positions.

Historically, Indian people have been accustomed to following instructions without thinking, so people who are good at that kind of work have been in leadership positions.
In Japan, it is natural to point out mistakes, but for Indian people, if something is wrong, it's the person who gave the instruction who is at fault, so they are not wrong.
That is true to some extent, but when the common sense is different, the conversation doesn't make sense.

If Indians believe that "simply doing what they are told is a good job," then there is no work for Indians. Without understanding this, every time something is revised, they blame Japan and avoid taking responsibility themselves, which irritates the Japanese side.

Even if the cost of Indian labor is 1/10 of the Japanese cost, that might be acceptable. However, at the current cost, a work style of simply doing what they are told will not work.

■ Typical communication patterns between Indians and Japanese people in a certain place.

Japanese person: Expresses an opinion (or something closer to a complaint).
Indian person: Responds.
Japanese person: Gives a reply.
Indian person: Responds.

What happened here?

■ Indian person's perception:
Since it is not rephrased, it is considered "resolved" and quickly forgotten.
A perception of "no problem."
Look, the feeling of "I am the best" and "I am perfect" increases.
We believe that our customers are highly satisfied and that we have achieved customer excellence.

■ Japanese person's perception:
"This person is useless, I'm done." The conversation is over.
It is considered unresolved.
They want to avoid further interaction.
Because it is troublesome, they say "Good Job" casually and leave.




It sounds like a joke, but it's a common sight.

■ How to schedule for Indian people at a certain place.

It actually happened.
I had a schedule where I would do one week of tasks (100% workload) and then, in sequence, a different week of tasks (100% workload).


One week has passed, but there was a staff member who could not proceed with the task due to other issues.
Then, the leader reorganized the schedule as follows:
One week of tasks (50% workload)
One week of tasks (50% workload)


The reason why the workload is decreasing is because even when I point it out, they just say "do it."
Is it telling me to work 200% of my capacity? When I point that out, they say "it's not like that." (What does that mean?)

It's like a black company, but maybe it's okay because they pay their employees enough in India.
It probably depends on the leader.

The Indian leader apparently rescheduled things and reported, "It's on schedule. There are no delays."
What does that mean? You just crammed everything into the schedule.
Do you think it's possible?

As expected, even though it was supposed to be "on schedule" until the end, for some reason, the final product didn't appear (laugh).

Of course, that's because it's not possible.

Another example of a schedule.

There was a person who was suddenly told, "Do this in a week starting tomorrow."
The Indian leader didn't listen when they said it was impossible because they had other work.
When they said they could do it at 20% capacity for a month, they were asked, "Why does it take a month?" Something is strange about this conversation. They don't seem to understand the difference between "workload" and "duration."
The manager said similar things, so is the manager also not understanding the difference between workload and duration, or are they just blindly accepting the leader's logic? (I think they probably understand the logic, though.)

Of course, there are excellent people in India, but maybe the "leader class" of Indian IT engineers who are just average are like this.

Another example.
There are many cases where the leader and manager don't understand changes in scope.
Even when the scope changes because it turns out that the previous scope was insufficient, the leader and manager often don't pay attention to it. Even after the scope changes, they often ask why the originally planned things can't be done. Perhaps the concept of "scope change" is not well understood by Indians because they have been doing simple tasks for a long time.
When the scope changes, it's natural to review the schedule, but it seems that Indians don't think so.
No, I'm sure there are excellent people who would review it, but those Indians were not paying attention to that.

■ Estimation accuracy of Indian people at a certain place.

Indian:
In the case of a successful outcome: "It is possible that it will be completed by today." (2-3% probability, varies depending on the individual)

For senior staff: "It should be completed today or tomorrow." (A feeling of 50% or higher probability)

Japanese:
Answer: "It should be possible to complete it today or tomorrow, but it may be delayed if there are any problems." (Approximately 80% probability, including risks)

■ If you are lucky, the deadline will be met. If you can finish by the deadline, that's lucky.

As an aside, I would like to write about my experience with support from Indian Railways.

It stated that it would be processed within 48 hours, but since I didn't receive a reply, I called to follow up, and was told, "Just wait."
I followed up again the next day, and the day after that, and even called to have my request escalated to a supervisor.
In the end, even after all that, I couldn't get a resolution, and finally, three weeks later, I received an email saying, "It has been processed."

(I will omit the details of what kind of support I received, as it is not the main topic.)

■How Indians work.

Even though I don't show it in front of Japanese people, the Indian people there have a bad relationship with each other.
Among Indian people, the following behaviors are common:
- It is normal to use power harassment to motivate others.
- They are good at insulting people.
- They blame everything on others.
- They claim that they are not at all at fault.

Sometimes, these underlying issues come out even when they are talking to Japanese people, so you can understand their true feelings.

■ An Indian person perceives "can" as "I will try."

As an Indian way of thinking,
The word "can" means "I will try."

If it works out, that's lucky.
If it works out in the end, they say "See, I told you I could do it."
If it doesn't work out, they just state the reason and end the conversation.

Even if it works out, it's annoying when they have excessive confidence and act arrogant (this varies from person to person, but generally it's like this).

■English for Indians

It's not very good.
Education and upbringing probably play a role. If they were more highly educated, they should be better at English.
The accent is very strong, but you gradually get used to it.
The grammar is also incorrect.

P.S.
When I receive sales calls from people in India, they often hang up on me because they can't understand my English.
Sometimes they get frustrated and say, "I don't understand your English." (That's because it's your English that's the problem).

■ Indians who don't mind using something without understanding its mechanism.

People try to conclude that something is "okay" simply because it "appears to be working."

They use flawed mechanisms and incorporate them directly into specifications without feeling any discomfort.
They ask, "What's the problem?"

This kind of problem is not limited to India, but I feel a strong tendency of this kind throughout Indian society.
I strongly feel that the attitude is "it's fine as long as it looks like it should be."
People in India tend to not think things through thoroughly.

■ The viewpoint of some people regarding the "specifications" of Indians.

Indians think about specifications as follows:
・Changing specifications is bad.
・Projects that require specification changes are "poorly executed" projects.
・People who write specifications that require changes are "poorly skilled" individuals.

Comments:
This perspective can be understood in the context of Indian IT culture. They have traditionally valued creating things exactly according to the given specifications. Therefore, they may not understand being told to "work together" now, as it implies a change in the situation. It's understandable why they might say, "We can't create anything if you don't give us proper specifications."
Because Indian CEOs and managers have this mindset, the way each project is run becomes apparent. It doesn't seem like they are properly assessing the situation of each project.

Due to this culture, they won't work unless you write specifications that are three times as detailed as necessary. Therefore, considering the overhead, it's questionable how much benefit there is to outsourcing to Indians.
Even if you write something three times as detailed, they might say, "The reason you're encountering these specific cases is because the specifications are not detailed enough." If they can't work unless you write that much, there's no point in giving them any work.

I've heard from Indian colleagues, in a condescending tone, things like, "Japanese people are really terrible" regarding the lack of finalized specifications. It's tiring. However, even when I ask, "What do you think we should do differently," they only suggest vague specifications. I want to say, "How can you be so confident with that level of detail," but I hold back.

Eventually, the Indians' confidence diminished somewhat, and they realized, "Maybe we're not as good as we thought." Well, that's how it was. It's quite something.

■ Requires specifications that are three times more detailed. On the other hand, the unit price is half.

If I order from Japanese people, I only write 1 to 3 out of a specification of 1 to 10. The unit price is 1.2 million. The remaining 4 to 10 are things that can be understood if you understand the content well, so they are not written in the specifications, but there is no problem with development. If there is anything unclear, they will properly confirm and propose, so there is no trouble.

On the other hand, if I order from India with a specification of 1 to 10, the unit price is 600,000. This is the sample unit price as of 2014. They are Indians, but they charge this much. It's no longer cheap.

The content is that if there is even a slight omission in the specifications, they will not think for themselves, even in places where it seems easy to imagine, and will start making a fuss, saying "There is a specification deficiency."

When they propose specifications, the content is often subtle and unusable.

No matter how many proposals they make, most of them are unusable, but sometimes a proposal is accepted, and then they start boasting and belittling others with comments like "I told you so." I feel like asking them, "What percentage of your proposals were accepted?" They have such confidence that it's as if everything was accepted. I just want them to do things on their own.

Because they don't pay attention to the details, the quality of the actual finished product is not good, and testing is difficult.

Moreover, these people are not efficient, so the completion is slow.

The design itself is subtle, and they choose things based on strange ideologies. A recent example is that Indians were excited about LINQ and chose it, but the performance was bad and there were many bugs. Indians are 300% confident, so they don't listen even when pointed out by others. I can't deal with them. Fortunately, it's not within my responsibility range, so I pointed out to some extent, but since they didn't listen, I left them alone afterward, and it felt like "I told you so."

There are various reasons for their confidence, as mentioned in the previous topic, so it's not just the confidence of Indian people.

Because of this, even if the unit price is twice as high, I feel that it is not worth it.
It feels like they are continuing the practices of a long time ago, when the unit price was "one-tenth" compared to foreign countries.

If they can't supplement it with their own knowledge at the current unit price, then Indians are truly unnecessary.

■ Mentality of Indian employees at a certain company.

Japanese expatriates are only here for a short time, so for Indian people, "getting along" is the top priority.

Those who understand this well know that if they become enemies, they will not get future work opportunities.
Those who don't understand it very well are not thinking much about it. (I personally find this type of person more endearing and preferable.)

Employees who can smile and move on even when they don't understand something are the ones who stay in the company. Other employees will leave.

Although it's not noticeable in the short term, those who have been here for a long time may notice that even the always-smiling employees (e.g., the head of administration) sometimes laugh "in a silly way." Sometimes, you can see that they are looking down on others.

Since an Indian person became the president in 2014, I feel that there have been more arrogant people among new employees and mid-career hires. These are the types of people that Japanese companies would not hire.

They think that even if they don't get work from Japan, they can get work from Europe or the United States, so they think they can eventually change jobs.

They have almost no desire to learn Japanese.

Even if they understand the reality that if the cost of labor in India increases, work will be taken to countries like China or Singapore where Japanese is spoken, they think that they can just go somewhere else (or at least, that's how it feels, and in reality, they often change jobs).

Managers would probably like to make things English-only, but in reality, if the employees have a choice, they will tend to use Japanese.

They don't understand the reality that they are only being chosen by the manager.
Or, perhaps they understand that, which is why they are treated with VIP service only when the manager comes.

■Typical Indian Mentality

Other people are not important. As long as I am fine, that is enough.

Therefore, when I become successful, I will not think about other people.
I will live selfishly with a very "pleasant" demeanor.

Even if those around me are troubled, the person's heart is very peaceful.
Even if those around me are angry, it is completely irrelevant to them.

This may be a kind of "enlightenment."

From the perspective of those around them, that person is completely oblivious. The person's heart is very peaceful.

"The hearts of Indians are very peaceful..." Is that so?
It might be good for a training ground.

Normally, I would not want to have anything to do with such people. Because no matter what you say, they "ignore" you.

■ The Indian manager at a certain company is like "nukanikugi."

The proverb "Nuki ni kugi" (like hammering a nail into sawdust) fits.

No matter what you say, they ignore it.

It's one thing to just ignore, but
some people smile and watch from a high position, which is disgusting.

Some people are the kind of people I would fire if I were the president.

■Japanese employee mentality.

Japanese expatriates are often only here for a short period, so they seem to try to avoid being disliked and resolve issues with money.
This may be a characteristic not only of the Indian subsidiary but also of the entire group (or perhaps a characteristic of Japanese people in general).

- They raise salaries as told.
- They raise rent as told.
- They raise the salary of maids as told (I don't do that).

In the end, the expatriates end up imitating the excuses that are convenient for the Indians.
- "India is experiencing inflation."
This doesn't mean that salaries should be raised as told.

- "Indians have no desire to learn Japanese. There is no benefit."
If they understand that if they can't speak Japanese, they won't get work, that might change.
If they are interested in Japan, they should naturally learn Japanese.
Is this a reflection of the fact that they have little expectation of Indians?

■ Changing the way Indians use it is also an option.

- Have them work for low wages, and if they want a raise, have them find another job.
- Break down the work to be outsourced to India into smaller units, so that it can be easily handled by external contractors.
- Treat them as mere workers, not as team members.

...This would be ideal, but for the reasons mentioned earlier, this will not happen at certain companies.

Furthermore, I think it would be a win-win situation if the entire company were sold to a company like Tata Consultancy Services, and then orders were placed with them. The useless manager layer would be completely replaced.

■Japanese people are often misunderstood.

Indians tend to charge more than the initially agreed-upon amount if they think they can get away with it.
When Japanese people say "That's not right," they say "It's not wrong." Furthermore, if Japanese people continue to argue, they will try to cover it up with various childish lies that are easy to understand.
Eventually, when Japanese people give up and say "Oh well," Indians misunderstand and think "This is fine" or "It's resolved."
They are not aware that they have lost the trust of the Japanese people, and instead, they even praise themselves for doing a good job.
Even in transactions within a group, Indians think "the other party is an enemy" and try to charge as much as possible. They don't really consider long-term relationships. They think that because it's within the group, there will always be work coming their way.

Managers who order from India often get tired of it and give up, saying "It's fine," but this only encourages the Indians to become more arrogant.
From the perspective of Japanese people, it's understandable if they don't want to deal with India.
However, if you tell Indians "India is not trusted," they get "hurt" and respond in a way that is obviously unpleasant. They get angry at the criticism, which is quite a headache. Because of the gap in awareness, it becomes too much trouble to even point it out.
From the perspective of Japanese people, it's like "Do whatever you want, you guys." They don't want to get involved.

Japanese people who are welcomed are those who are loyal to the opinions of Indians and are also "ATMs."
The previous president was exactly like an ATM, and Indians would probably have been laughing uncontrollably.

■ The unit price of Indians at a certain place.

In 2012, the man-month price was reportedly around ?? million yen.
In 2013, the man-month price was reportedly around ?? million yen.
In 2014, the man-month price was around ?? to ?? million yen (depending on the project).

However, in addition to this, there is an arbitrary and one-sided surcharge imposed by the Indian staff, who "grab whatever they can get" (of course, without the client's permission, and the details are disguised with another reason). Therefore, even if you are careful, you will usually be charged a man-month that exceeds the actual work hours. So, even if the apparent unit price is as presented above, you should assume that it is actually about 1.5 times higher. (This is based on current information, as I don't know the actual situation in the past.)

Therefore, the actual unit price is as follows:
In 2014, it was ?? to ?? million yen (and in some cases, it may already exceed the price charged by Japanese staff).

Also, be careful that while Japanese people tend to think that "the price presented will be fixed until there is a change," Indian people consider it to be "the market price," and they may arbitrarily charge based on the current market price, so be careful.

These are people who will say things like, "Since it's just a verbal agreement, there's no proof, so it's okay to break it," even if they have agreed on a price beforehand. They probably say this because they think that since words don't leave a trace, they can get away with it.

Whether it's an additional charge or an arbitrary adjustment of the unit price, they will often issue invoices with ridiculous justifications like, "Well, that's what it cost." It makes you wonder if Indian people have a weak sense of "keeping promises."

If they are intentionally committing fraud, it is even more serious, but currently, it is a gray area, and although it appears to be intentional from the outside, they excuse themselves and get away with it.

Personally, I see Indian managers as "completely corrupt," and I don't trust them at all. They are Indian managers who try to cover things up with a "friendly" smile when something inconvenient happens.

■ Is there any hope for development in a certain area of India?

The "first" experience in one's youth is crucial.
It is important to instill in young people the understanding that principles are important.
Elderly people who have been influenced by the "Indian" mindset of "principles are not important; just follow the decisions" need to be eliminated.
Currently, there are many people in a certain Indian subsidiary who say, "Principles don't matter; just follow us managers." Such people should be fired.
If we steadily build from the "beginning," there is a possibility that the organization will grow.
If those in charge of training take shortcuts and promote people who are somehow arrogant or have a good attitude, there will be no such accumulation, and later personnel will not follow.
The current certain Indian company has hope in its young people, but many of the elderly are useless.

■ Is there any hope for a certain Indian organization?

The "beginning" of creating an organization is crucial.
The current organization needs to be dismantled, and it is necessary to build it up from the "beginning" little by little.
The company needs to be rebuilt, and while retaining necessary personnel, other personnel need to be removed.
Especially, personnel who have become "important" simply by staying for a long time and are not useful are unnecessary.

■Aftermath of the Indian branch.

Two years have passed since then.

The Japanese manager left at the Indian subsidiary was in a disastrous situation.
Not only was he ignored by the Indian president and Indian managers, but he was apparently scolded and ridiculed by Indians every time, and he was ostracized. The Indian managers not only didn't listen to the Japanese manager, but seemed to think that they were the best and that Japanese people were crazy.
Despite the fact that the customers are Japanese, they say things like, "Your way of doing things won't work in America," without looking at the customers, and they seem to think that it is natural for Japanese people to adapt to their way of doing things, and that Japanese people's way of doing things is foolish and technically unusable, so they should leave everything to them. It seems that the Indian people do not have the concept of "adapting to the customer's way of doing things."

This Japanese manager is the same person who, when I was in India, rode on the backs of the Indians and criticized me for defending the claims of the Indians, even though he didn't understand the situation well. Now that I'm gone, he seems to have finally realized how bad the Indians are, and he was an unimaginative and useless Japanese manager who didn't understand the situation until he experienced the same thing himself. In the first place, what is needed to deal with Indians is not logic, but power, so I am astonished by the lack of judgment in the personnel department that sent such a manager who only talks about logic but has no power to India. It was obvious from the beginning that it would fail.

Even if I tell the personnel department at the headquarters about this, the Indians are obedient and perfect "yes-men" to the personnel department, so the response I get from the personnel department is something like, "Aren't they obedient Indians? What's the problem?" They probably think of Japanese people as easy targets. The Indian people in the field, as I mentioned before, spend their time with a creepy smile and a sly expression, and no one points it out.

The former Indian president, who was harassing people, seems to have returned to the headquarters and become a department head.

The distance between the headquarters and the Indian branch has widened, and eventually, the Indian branch stopped receiving work from Japan, but no one took responsibility. For about a year, there wasn't much work, so most people quit, and only useless old people and useless managers and young people remained. Even so, because money continues to flow to India due to the system, salaries are paid, so the situation is that they can raise their salaries without causing a collapse. In units that are doing projects close to the headquarters, cost management is strict, so such a situation should not be allowed, but the development department is lukewarm. Apparently, the managers are receiving salaries equivalent to those of Japanese people. Therefore, the unit price for outsourcing work to India is much higher than outsourcing work to Japanese cooperative companies, and yet the quality is not good, so they hardly outsource any work. Even so, money continues to flow in, so the Indian branch will not collapse. For the Indians, the system they have created is wonderful and perfect, which is, in a sense, a kind of irony, but it is also true in some ways. It is a system that will never collapse financially.

The Japanese headquarters' tendency to conceal problems and the corporate culture where only positive statements are allowed have resulted in the external perception that the Indian branch is successful. Therefore, the Indian branch will likely not be shut down, and the former president who engaged in abusive behavior and caused chaos has become a department head, with plans to become president in the future. Before becoming a department head, he was disliked and ignored by everyone, but since becoming a department head, the attitude of those around him has changed, and he is suddenly called "〜-sama." However, it is said that this is often used sarcastically, and people around him are wondering, "Why did that person become a department head?" Is this the naked emperor? All failures are glossed over, and those who speak out are scolded with, "Don't say things like that." Even though there are Indian people who are profiting in the shadows, no one tries to correct it.

Perhaps in Japanese companies, people who praise everything are appreciated more than those who tell the truth. However, in excellent companies like Toyota, it is likely that they can see through those who do not tell the truth.

Indeed, after becoming a section chief or above, it is necessary to raise the morale of those around you, but that is completely different from denying reality and claiming that everything is wonderful. As I wrote in my blog two years ago, foolish and superficial measures such as "praising to boost confidence" have been stagnating the branch for many years. Now, no one in the development department wants to be involved with India, but they cannot say that to other departments, so they must continue somehow. The Indian branch, whether they understand or not, is pushing its own agenda while refusing to do the work it doesn't want to do. It is unbelievable for a branch to refuse work. However, this is because money is readily available, so they can be safe even if they don't work.

Now, only the upper management who are out of touch believe that India is doing well, while most of the people on the front lines think that the Indian branch is useless. Indeed, there are some people who can be used to some extent, but the field does not want to deal with Indian managers who are troublesome and cannot be used, or Indian line managers who arbitrarily request additional fees, or Indian line managers who make excuses and break promises, or managers who seem to think that verbal agreements are not binding.

Indians think that even though the customer is Japanese, they consider quality standards based on their own subjective opinions. If an Indian thinks that something is of good quality, even if a Japanese customer points it out and tries to have it corrected, there are managers who will secretly say things like, "You guys are crazy to think about such things." The practice of being satisfied as long as the quality that the company's own people think is good is met, rather than the quality that the customer wants, is, as I mentioned before, a result of previous Japanese customers and past assignees giving up, thinking, "Well, India is like this anyway, so it's fine," and easily praising and ending things, or praising them just to give them confidence. As I also mentioned before, the previous president praised the Indians excessively because he wanted to return to Japan, giving them his approval that they were fully capable, so they have stopped listening to Japanese people and have been laughing at the Japanese people who point out various things.

At one point, there was an attempt to revitalize India by sending a manager from Japan, but the Indian side apparently refused, saying, "We are perfect, so we don't need you." Regardless of the headquarters' intention to create a system that allows for refusal, the fact that they could refuse is the Indian side's claim. They are exercising their rights to the fullest extent because they have been given autonomy. Unlike Japan, where people read the air and accept things to a certain extent, they are making the most of the rights they believe they have obtained and are not hesitating to exercise those rights. Furthermore, it is wrong to demand independence from a society in India, which is like a child who doesn't understand the basic principles of things, and I am also astonished by the lack of human resources skills in judging that applying the same system to the entire world is a good thing. Ultimately, it seems that human resources doesn't care about the actual situation on the ground, as far as they are concerned, it's none of their business. From the perspective of the people on the ground.

The basic strategy that Indians use to belittle Japanese people is information control. Basically, business communications are only shared with other Indian members, and even though the job titles are the same, they do not communicate with Japanese people at all, thereby restricting information. This creates a situation where they have to inquire with the headquarters themselves, which causes the headquarters to react, saying, "Why do we have to explain the same thing to both Indians and Japanese people?" Not only general business communications, but also in matters related to the main job, they do not provide the necessary information for making decisions, but only ask for the decision. It is impossible to give a complete answer when asked without having the necessary information, and they pass on that answer to the headquarters, using it as a basis to say, "That person is useless. Leave it to us Indians." Even if a Japanese assignee tries to convey information to the Indians, they will say things like, "It's placed somewhere," without announcing where it is, and they will put it in a place they like, and use that as an alibi to claim that they are making the information public. The purpose of the Indians is to "prove that we Indians are superior to Japanese people," so instead of honestly using the same information to think and reach a conclusion to prove their superiority, they easily win by simply closing off the information, which makes it impossible to even think about it. Moreover, by creating an alibi that claims to be making the information public, they can externally prove the superiority of the Indians, because it proves that they are competing on the same foundation. As I mentioned before, the flaws of the Indians become apparent only when they are left alone. Japanese people are helpful and try their best to support the shortcomings of the Indians, but the Indians believe that everything is due to their own superiority, so they think that Japanese people are not needed. However, if you leave it to the Indians, things don't go well, and when things don't go well, they blame the ordering method, or someone else, and do not try to think that they are the cause.

The salaries of Indian people are generally very low. In the IT field, even the starting salary for new graduates often exceeds the income of their parents. Therefore, even if they are completely useless and unproductive, they often mistakenly believe that they are extremely talented and perfect based on their salaries.

If the person in charge tells the truth, they are scolded by the manager and their evaluation is lowered. On the other hand, if the project fails due to a lack of fundamental measures, the person in charge is held responsible. Indian people do not acknowledge their own shortcomings. If things go well, they report that it is because they were perfect, and that Japanese people are unnecessary, or that Japanese people were not doing anything significant. Conversely, if things go poorly, they claim that it is because Japanese people are not functioning properly, and that the failure is their fault, and that they, the Indian people, are excellent and should have been in charge from the beginning. If they say that, then let's try it. We tried letting them do it without the involvement of Japanese people, but the results were disastrous. Even in the face of those results, they claim that it is not their fault, but that the request itself was wrong. Ultimately, no matter what, things don't work out, but they still insist that they are excellent. These people should be fired, but Japanese companies are too lenient and leave them as they are, and the situation does not improve.

Not all Indian people are bad, but many of the current managers are cunning. The former managers and former presidents who promoted such people can be said to be naive. With Japanese people, there is often a premise of working together based on trust and good faith. However, in the case of cunning Indian people, they consider any Japanese person who makes negative reports about them to be an enemy, and they spread rumors to ensure that the head office does not take those people seriously. On the other hand, they ignore or harass such Japanese people, relentlessly attacking them to break their spirits. Once someone's spirit is broken, and they say something like "Indian people are excellent," thinking "I don't care anymore," they use that as an excuse to say, "See, we are excellent, so let us handle it." However, this is just a strategic way to make them say that, and the results are always disastrous. No matter what they say, their actions and results do not match, so gradually, India becomes less and less relevant. The Japanese development department is forced to clean up the mess, but while watching them do that, the Indian people say, "See, we are excellent, so we don't need the help of Japanese people," and they refuse to give up. Since it is pointless to deal with them, gradually, fewer and fewer Japanese people are willing to work with Indian people.

No matter how many situations I report to headquarters, if there is even a slight unpleasant comment, they suppress the words and say, "You shouldn't be saying things like that," or "Instead of talking about getting fired, think about other things." The headquarters manager says, "Think of a third way," but in reality, firing the local Indian manager is the third way. However, it seems that the headquarters manager doesn't understand the current situation, so they just keep saying things and putting it off. I'm fed up with the headquarters manager who stops thinking by pointing out things that are far from the essence and stubbornly insists on being irrelevant. Not only do they lack understanding, but they don't even want to understand, which is unacceptable. They are constantly looking for excuses to remain irrelevant, and they don't try to get to the heart of the matter. I'm also frustrated by managers who try to suppress comments by saying things like, "Don't stir up trouble." In this situation, the Indians probably see Japanese people as easy targets.

Even when I explain things in words that shouldn't be unpleasant, the Japanese manager in charge hardly understands, or is not even interested. When I clearly explain things so that they can understand, they react by saying, "What are you saying?" and reject the idea of understanding reality. There is a situation that is physiologically unacceptable, so the Japanese manager should address it seriously, but because it is physiologically unacceptable, they don't even try to understand it, let alone deal with it. Some managers at headquarters dismiss all the related parties as outcasts and bad people. In such a situation, the Indians give VIP treatment to Japanese senior managers (department heads) who occasionally come from Japan, so the senior managers only think that the Indians are good people. However, for other regular managers and below, the Indians ignore or look down on them and smile. Therefore, I don't want to deal with Indians. However, I receive instructions from the department heads to use the Indians. It is truly ironic that the Indians are doing a good job. Because there are orders from above, we are forced to use the Indians, but the responsible person and regular managers don't want to deal with the Indians. As evidence of this, or perhaps because of other company policies, or perhaps it is irrelevant, it seems that a large number of managers and former employees who were stationed in India are suffering from depression and taking a leave of absence. The extent to which this is related is an individual matter.

The former president was a habitual offender of power harassment, and would publicly mock and belittle some dispatched employees with vulgar remarks like, "You're useless." It's absurd that such a person would be promoted after returning to headquarters. People who are not only useless but also drag others down are being promoted.

No matter what decisions are made, they always say, "It's because we decided it together," but they don't assign responsibility and try to push their own will through while refusing to take responsibility themselves. Managers repeatedly ask questions even after explanations, showing no intention of understanding. Managers refuse to acknowledge what they understand and continue to act as if they don't understand, trying to avoid involvement. The Indian manager, like a piece of straw clinging to a tile, seems to have inherited these bad qualities from the headquarters managers. However, they only use their position as a manager when they want to push their own will, and conversely, they don't listen to opinions from below. Even when there are various opinions, there is no place to discuss them, and decisions are simply conveyed, and even when opinions are expressed, they are dismissed with the words, "It's already decided." Even if managers make decisions based on incorrect data, they refuse to acknowledge it and claim to know everything. The information shared on a portal, which is only accessible to managers, is extremely biased, and there are cases where it is used to belittle some members in order to inflate the evaluation of subordinates. Other managers then use this information as a basis for their evaluations, leading to increasingly strange results. Moreover, managers often don't properly evaluate their subordinates, and instead, they often judge based on what other managers say, leading to many managers having very strange perceptions. Without looking at the person in front of them, managers make arbitrary and incorrect claims, such as, "Are you supposed to be...?" and claim that they know everything, and they often treat subordinates in an arrogant manner based on false information reported by other managers. It's not surprising if subordinates see managers as such people and give up on them. Ideally, managers should win over subordinates with their thinking skills, but managers try to control subordinates by restricting information, which only leads to subordinates mocking them. There is nothing more ridiculous than managing through information restrictions.

In a company like Apple, where managers can properly make judgments, it is correct to say that efficient operation, where a minimum number of people decide in a meeting and subordinates execute it, is the right approach. However, in situations where managers have not earned the trust of their subordinates, information control is simply a means for managers to maintain their authority. If employees have to follow managers who cannot make proper judgments, even though the competitiveness of Japanese companies stems from the excellence of their employees, many would quit. In fact, I heard that many managers had to deal with early retirements, with twice the number of employees quitting, and some managers even lost all of their subordinates. There were also cases where entire departments disappeared.

Managers don't provide information to subordinates because they know that subordinates are more capable, and they do so to protect their own positions. They come up with various reasons, such as efficiency, but the simple fact is that subordinates don't follow managers because incompetent people have become managers. Incompetent people should not be promoted. Subordinates don't respect managers, so managers have to simply give orders and force subordinates to act, and in such situations, subordinates will not follow, and conversely, they will reject the manager. In such situations, talented but difficult-to-use people tend to receive lower evaluations as a form of self-justification. While the official evaluation may be decent, some clever managers write things that are not true in the personnel information shared only among managers in order to lower the evaluation. In my case, there were even instances where something was written like, "He only added the work of others, and he didn't do anything substantial." Even when I protested, it seemed like my words would be dismissed as lies. The evaluations of Japanese dispatched employees by Indian managers are also generally low, as they are designed to promote Indian employees by claiming that they are superior to Japanese employees. There are no Japanese employees who criticize Indian managers, so they can do whatever they want. The arbitrary evaluation system, where all achievements are attributed to the achievements of those they like, further erodes the trust in managers.

Even Japanese managers are at that level, and Indian managers who see the information on that portal are also misunderstanding and doing extremely strange things. Companies that prioritize the opinions of authority figures without properly looking at the people in front of them will repeat self-affirmation like Toshiba. They prioritize "easy-to-understand" explanations over understanding the content, and they prioritize the logic of "it should be..." over reality.

The staff mainly follow the rules, while the manager's job is to make correct judgments. A manager's judgment cannot always be determined by rules, and sometimes a judgment is needed at that time. However, some Indian managers only know how to say "it's impossible" because it's not in the rules. Furthermore, many Indian managers say "it's a waste of time" and refuse to listen from the beginning, even if you explain it. If they know it's possible but don't do it, it's harassment towards the Japanese. These Indian managers have a smug, thin smile on their faces when they say "it's impossible," making it obvious what intentions they have for harassment. They don't even try to understand what you're saying. They believe that the decisions they made in the past are absolutely correct and there is no room for argument, and that everyone should just follow them. Logic doesn't work. They often seem to be so unintelligent that they can't understand the basic principles of things.

There are several purposes for Indian managers, mainly:
1. They have been subjected to rude behavior from Japanese expatriates in the past, and they are stressed and want to vent their anger.
2. To argue that Japanese people are not needed and that Indians are sufficient, they want to drive out all Japanese people. They claim that Indians are more capable than Japanese people, and as a result, harassment such as not sending work-related information to Japanese people, while informing other Indian members, is commonplace. By not providing information, they deprive them of the opportunity to make judgments and suppress their speech. When they ask for a statement, they don't provide any information beforehand and force them to speak, and they only allow them to speak as an alibi to claim that Indians are superior by making them make irrelevant statements because they don't know the premise. When they call a meeting, they don't provide any information and force them to speak immediately, either making them unable to speak or making them make irrelevant statements, and then pointing it out to mock the Japanese people.
3. To make the company their own. Regardless of the legal ownership, they want to become the de facto president. Once they become the president, it is quite difficult to dismiss them under Indian law. They can also decide their own salaries. There are Indian managers who are currently receiving more salary than Japanese people, and they probably want to get as much as they can. This is true. If you don't believe it, you don't know Indians and are naive.

I heard that there are currently no Japanese people on assignment in India. It feels like a different world in just 2 years. The last Japanese person on assignment seemed to be living in a foreign environment in India, and while being on assignment is supposed to be a fun experience, being on assignment in India has become like torture. Now, there are no volunteers, and no one is being sent. It seems that the company is also going to be downsized, but it is unclear to what extent the Indians will agree.

The people in the development department in Japan are saying, "Who should we sacrifice and send to India?" Some managers are aware that India is in a terrible state, but instead of trying to solve it as their own problem, they seem to think of it as a place to send unwanted people from Japan. Ultimately, because rumors precede the offer, many people refuse when offered a transfer to India. On the other hand, the Indian side seems to only want people who are easily manipulated to promote India, or people who can be exploited for money, and they openly refuse transfer requests. Normally, a branch that doesn't follow the company's instructions to transfer employees would be considered unnecessary and might be shut down or have its managers replaced. However, for some incredibly strange reason, it has continued to exist. This may be because the former president was keeping a close watch and suppressing anyone who spoke badly about the Indian branch. If that's the case, the end of the Indian branch may come when the former president is demoted.

The former president publicly stated that he highly values the new Indian president. However, the fact that he says this but still doesn't actively use the Indian branch himself, and instead lets others use it, is a contradiction between words and actions, and he may not actually think that the Indian branch is usable. It's not necessary to take the former president's words seriously, even though he has been favored by the upper management and has become a department head. However, since he has been favored by the upper management and has become a department head, those around him will try to be yes-men and follow his instructions. But even if he actually uses the Indian branch, if he fails, it will be the end of him, so he probably isn't actually using it. In the end, he is making others take responsibility for his failures. Even if you are favored and promoted by the upper management, the people below will not follow something like that.

Despite this, the upper management seems to be trying to use the Indian branch somehow, and they are sending several people from India to Japan each year to transfer work to India. However, from the perspective of the Indian people, they are already confident that Indian people are excellent and can succeed in Japan. On the other hand, from the perspective of the Japanese people, they think that even if the Indian people are not currently usable, if they come to Japan and learn how to do things, they will be able to take on those jobs when they return to India, so they should be patient and work with them for a while. However, because of this gap in awareness, even though they spend a lot of money to send Indian people to Japan, and they finally start to get the hang of things, the Indian people think that their work is done, so they return to India and move to a different company. This happens in about 80% of the cases. From the perspective of the Japanese people, they feel that it's not worth the effort because they work hard to train the Indian people, but they leave as soon as they return to India. From the perspective of the Indian managers, they say, "We are excellent, so please send us more people so we can contribute." However, the pattern of letting them study and then leaving continues. Therefore, from my perspective, I think they should send people who are so bad that they can't go to other companies, or people who are not capable of doing anything and are unlikely to change jobs after returning. Japanese companies cannot pay salaries that are comparable to those of foreign companies, so this is probably the only way they can deal with it. They cannot compete with the amount that American companies pay in India.

Even so, it's been two years, and the situation is exactly as I predicted two years ago, and the situation hasn't improved at all. What does that even mean? The only way to solve it is to sweep away the management layer and start anew with a new company and a new management layer, as I said from the beginning. But that's something that no longer concerns me. If only they had entrusted everything to me from the beginning. Now, it seems like we'll be forever saddled with debt. Perhaps we can ironically praise this company as being financially sound if it can afford to lose several hundred million yen per year. It's unclear how much the former president anticipated this, but the fact that someone who ruined the company is being praised and promoted is strange, even for an old-fashioned company. It may represent a negative aspect of Japanese society, where there is no self-cleansing and only praise. It's similar to the recently popular, Japan-praising, thought-stopping TV channels. We, who are saying these things, are old, so we can get away with saying whatever we want. There's a rumor, or rather, a common sense in the field, that if you "behave in a way that the upper management likes," you can advance to a certain extent in that company. Even while showing a good face and behaving in a way that the company's main members like, harassment is tolerated, and there is no future. However, I know about other companies, so compared to the worst harassment in the worst group that is listed on the stock exchange, this is nothing. But there's no bottom to it.

Recently, a person who was transferred to India has returned, and it seems that he is still saying, "India is no good."

By the way, the solution for India, as I proposed two years ago, is to fire the Indian line managers. If the Indian president defends them, then the president should also be dismissed. But that company hasn't had that kind of action for two years, so it probably won't happen in the future.

I'm astonished by how incapable this company is of making corrections. No one wants to take responsibility, and they're just letting the Indians go. I can say with 120% certainty that I'm glad I left that company.

Personally, I had lost interest, but the more I hear rumors, the more I think about it.

I was 120% certain right after I left, and even now, two years later, I can say with 120% certainty that I'm glad I left.

A corporate culture where anything can be implemented from the top down, simply by claiming it's "for efficiency." Lower-level opinions are ignored, but if something goes wrong, the blame is always placed on those lower down. Indian colleagues will dismiss any objections with a condescending smile, saying, "You don't know anything," and berating you. It's pointless to say anything to them, and it's impossible to change anything. The headquarters is unable to take action, even though the only solution is to fire them.

I can't stand working in such an environment. Just do whatever you want.

Ultimately, the Indian branch was just a stepping stone for the headquarters' executives and former presidents. Now that their purpose has been served, no one is cleaning up the mess, which allows the Indians to take advantage of the situation. Japanese companies often talk about good things while hiding the bad, and no one wants to take responsibility. As a result, people like me who speak the truth are unfairly labeled as troublemakers and forced out.

Most people in Japanese companies are safe as long as they say, "India is wonderful." This allows them to consume the company's resources, and the upper management remains oblivious to the fact that the company is weakening. I now understand why Japanese companies struggle to expand overseas. It's because their mindset is different. Even though reports are always filled with phrases like "wonderful" and "perfect," the overseas branches are not successful because the fundamental mindset is different. Indians assess the current, dilapidated state as "perfect," while Japanese people would think that's not the case. They don't even understand this difference, so they shouldn't be expanding overseas.

At the same time, the Indian president gives VIP treatment to the upper management of the headquarters, so the upper management doesn't realize how bad things are in India. In this way, the company is being exploited by the Indians. Eventually, the quality will be lowered to the level that the Indians consider acceptable. If the quality of Japanese technology is based on the standards of the Indians, it will be over.

In the Indian branch where I worked, it was considered absolute that the quality was what the Indians thought it was. Therefore, it's only a matter of time before the quality of the products declines because the Indian standard is the benchmark. I feel sorry for many Japanese companies.




<追記 2018/5/1>

■India branch, sequel 2.

After two years, it seems that the number of employees at the Indian branch has been halved.

Young people with hope for the future have all left, and only useless elderly people remain.
Moreover, the Indian side has arbitrarily raised salaries, so many Indians are receiving the same amount as Japanese employees.
Even when ordering from India, the technical capabilities are far inferior to those of Japanese subcontractors, and they are useless. In addition, they arbitrarily send invoices and increase the number of people, so the number of projects using India is decreasing. However, it seems that they are quite good at taking on new projects by providing VIP treatment and appeasing newly arrived department heads and deputy department heads.

Recently, they seem to be taking on a lot of projects by appeasing newly arrived deputy department heads who are not familiar with the situation. However, since there are almost no employees left in the company, they are further outsourcing. Many people think that if they are going to outsource, they should have done so from the beginning.

Because they believe that their own technology is the best, even if the Japanese side says "do it this way," they say, "That is not possible with this technology. The Japanese side doesn't understand the technology, so they say such things. Leave it to India." However, when the Japanese side creates a sample and says, "It is possible," they get angry and say that their pride has been hurt. It's quite a hassle. As I mentioned before, they are so immature that they cannot accept the fact that they lack technical skills.

I think that there are many Japanese companies that are being taken advantage of by India in this way. Because Japan does not have the option of "firing" useless employees, Japanese people are often seen as lenient. If they are useless, they should simply close the branch, but as long as the supervisor who opened the branch remains in the company, it cannot be closed. As a result, more and more funds are being spent on India, and even though they are not doing much, they say "India is excellent," and the salaries of Indian people are constantly increasing. In the company I was in, there was a system where they would pay a certain amount, so even if the Indian side raised salaries, it would never result in a deficit. Even if they are not managers, they are earning more than Japanese people, and it seems to be a bubble state.

I investigated various things, but compared to the average salary in Bangalore, they are paying 1.2 to 1.5 times the salary for new employees, and 2 to 3 times the salary for mid-level and above employees. Therefore, useless mid-level employees cannot move to other places with that salary, while useful new employees are constantly changing jobs, so only useless employees remain in the company.

Every time the discussion of shutting it down comes up, the Indian managers treat the Japanese managers with VIP treatment and delay the closure, but by the time it becomes clear that it's actually unusable, the Japanese managers have moved to different departments. Because they don't want to get their hands dirty, they avoid closing it down and try to cover it up, leaving it to the next person. Because of this, the Indian branch office, which is unusable, continues to exist.

The situation is as I described before, nothing has improved, and there's a sense of being in a backwater, so I'm almost no longer interested, but I'm only interested in how the final ending will be. I'm curious about what kind of ending it will have. I want to see the ending soon. If it drags on too long, I'll change the channel. Please end it quickly.



<追記 2019/10/28>