The Revolt of 1857 and IT industry today

Sometimes events and happenings even though seemingly unrelated to each other, are connected by a deeper history, which lies hidden unless looked into slightly more microscopically.
A lot of emphasis is placed on extracurricular reading in the corporate world these days, in search of innovative ideas, new strategies. It is becoming more of a race to look into past laurels and learn from there. In that sense, the market today is the new battle field and hence evermore stress on the generals of today to follow what generals of yore have done and gotten away with.
The Art of War, by Sun Tzu, has become a cult favourite in terms of looking for strategies and quotes, not to be unfair to the many who prescribe to this, reading after all is the best way to learn, only slightly lower on the scale than experience. But then, that is mostly for the fights in the world outside of the organisations, when it comes to extinguishing the fires within, a lot many generals have burnt their hands unsuccessfully.
It is ok to recite a few strategy points copied from here and there, to make everyone believe that they still have some iota of creative springs sprouting within them, but the pictures clear up like a winter fog melting away in the noon, when their foot soldiers start asking questions to which they have no answers whatsoever. Looking back, they regret why they just read the bold sections in the beginning of every chapter and not whole chapters of the Sun Tzu book.
The current scenario is not unlike what situations would be world over in many organisations, over the history in many verticals of all industries, hadn't it been so there wouldn't have been the numerous revolutions which changed the shape of world economy. Back home as well, a long time ago, there was a revolution, which even though completely unrelated to current times and industry, can be used to draw parallels and maybe improve what has now become a widespread phenomenon of employee dissatisfaction.
Coming from a school of thought which preferred to read deeply and not just read for reading a text, i was able to, maybe, see some common ground between the seemingly impossible similar situations.
Many of my friends and learned colleagues, in and out of the industry are well read people and not just techno geeks as assumed by people who haven't seen this world inside out. For them it could be a scene out of their normal routine, but then too, what i want to convey here doesn't in any sense require advanced degrees in any engineering or business administration.
Bear with me when i try and give a well researched run down of events from history, a subject not of much interest to many, but then, it is always good to know that the time and events then and now are not that dissimilar, infact it could also make people realise, where they are stuck at in the journey of their career and whether its the same place they wished to find themselves.
Before i start with the actual comparison, here is a small recap on some of facts which may not be in ready reckoning, of the general readers memory,

• Before the Revolt of 1857, India wan't under the direct rule of the British Crown
• East India Company, the one started by the British, was the largest trading company in the world by then, and it had its own private army to protect its assets. India had three divisions, The Bengal Army, The Bombay Army and The Madras Army. If the names seem familiar, its because many of the regiments remain unchanged even today.
• The Mutiny, as it was called by the British, only affected the Bengal army, for reasons not unknown. The Bombay and the Madras divisions remained unaffected by the revolt.
  This also became one of the reasons for the British to call it a Mutiny than a war of freedom.

Now coming over to the current times, anyone with a decent exposure to the IT industry in India would know the terms mentioned below,

1. Disconnected Ranks.
• Incapable seniors. Bang. As if this is one problem faced by all the industries. Managers. In other words the Generals and Colonels above the foot soldiers. If I may say so. During the decade of 1830, a gradual decline began to come in the ranks of the Bengal army. Previous experienced higher officers were being replaced by a new segment of people. The new ones were not as talented as the old guards retiring now, or moving on to even higher assignments. Experience and lack it, both came out in the front when neither the Managers nor the employees were happy with one another.
• A change over in any realm is not without friction. Ideas and Ideals rub against each other and then they become smooth over time to form a new rhythm. Precisely what was missing. The new guard never trusted the foot soldiers. They were mostly aloof and a deep sense of mistrust ensued between both the layers. The new management was hardly concerned with the problems and trepidations of the ones beneath them. They had their won will to be imposed on everyone at all times.
2. Professional Grievances,
• Salary Differences. As is common today, there are two extremes of this argument. On one side the salaries are exorbitant for anyone with even half a decent applicable skills, at the same time engineers are churned out from colleges and hired in hordes to account for fake strength. The Bengal army, for a better part of the 1840's hired much like what the industry has been for the past decade. Everyone and anyone was pulled in.  There was a high discrimination in renumeration paid to Officers of Indian and British origin. Not unlike the favouritism shown in todays times as well. The quantum of amount being slightly different between now and then.
• Promotions. Due to the growing mistrust between the ones above and the the actuals soldiers fighting the wars, there emerged another class of the latter. The ones who were not concerned with the work, but wanted brownie points for good behaviour. Talent took a back seat and awards and favours were granted on mere appearances. This middle layer which was despised by their own comrades would be the next level of defence. For the ones above, managing this crop was easier, even though all they would do was to weaken the army. But then a lack of vision is the biggest lacuna, for leader, as has been shown so many times in the history of mankind.

Most of the employees would agree with the rants above. Now, i could go ahead and generalise this situation for everyone company and each business vertical, but then that is not the case. Remember the Bombay and the Madras armies did fine even in the face of mutiny. Of course not everyone is same, but a majority of professionals are facing these issues in current times, and sadly i don't even hear the call of "halla bol" anytime soon.

Of being pushed to become a leader....

What is the sign of a good leader? Number 1, he should be really hard to copy. Or in other words, mimic. I can assure you, there are going to be jokes and parodies made on you, after everything you do. So you better start with putting up ideas and visions so out of this world, that people should start thinking about jumping in front of an SUV on Delhi roads, before trying to mimic you. Before they want to copy your leadership style.

More often than not, leaders are chosen and not emerge as may be the general misconception. Leaders, are made out of people, who did not take a step behind, when "they" came asking for volunteers. It's pretty much a comic scene out any army movie, but then most creative ideas do come from real life mishaps. Since no one in their sane mind would step forward, if asked to lead a group of people, misadjusted, misaligned, for the sake of a vision that no one understands, let alone believe in, the person dumb enough not to run like a scared rabbit caught in front of an on coming train in a narrow tunnel, gets to lead. Once a leader is selected, everyone in the team turns into a paid stooge. We can easily imagine the kind of co-operation the leader would get, and eventually what happens to the leader from everyone "under" him. Since everyone else was smart enough to move back the right number of paces at the right time, rest assured they will always be smart enough to plan and be two steps ahead of the leader all the time.

Leaders aren't just done for from the side of people they lead, there are others baying for their blood too. Believe it or not, there are people in this world who would give an arm for the very post,  one gullible individual was thrust into because of the smartness of a bunch of people, who in turn will, for the lifetime of his leadership, keep on outclassing and embarrassing him. The people, who want to kill the newly elected leader, will spread malicious rumours, false propagandas, just so they can lead in his place. They have a false idea of perks and charms of a position,  but they are unknown of the truth that this position was created just to make sure, "they" have a fall guy.

So who is this, "they", being mentioned time and again. "They" are the ones who hold the actual strings in hands. Everyone is a puppet for them. Everyone is a piece on the chess board of corporate gaming, ready to be placed here and there, on their game plans and sometimes whims and fancies too. It's they who decide if the leader is to be executed or to be moved to a different role when the right time comes. No one sees them, for they hide in plain sight of everyone, working on their devious plans and executing them, as if its an act of providence and "they" too are just puppets in someone else's hands. Misdirection. That is an art they adept in. Beware of their charms as they know which buttons to press, so that people are ready to lay their principles and morals and accept what is being thrown at them. Leaders once selected and put in their respective roles have to be beware of such forces as well. For obvious reasons, oblivious to the larger game afoot, a leader is blinded by duty and faith in the vision.

Any person, especially someone one wants to get some work done from, won't work at all if someone were to tell them the stark truth. Lets take an example to get a better idea. Let us assume that you are a manager and you want to ask someone leading a team, for data on the work done, achievements, you would tell them their appraisal depends on how good they showcase the data. But the actual truth that you hide from them is that, actually they could've done whatever they wanted, no one above you is going to ask for a reason why you gave them a 15% percent hike, and that actually, its your arse that depends on how well they performed, because their doing their job well is well, their  responsibility but motivating them to do excellent is your duty, not theirs. Next time try telling that to an employee and i am sure anyone in their sane mind would give you data that proves what a dumb manager you are. No that is why its always better to start building a scary story, about how the people above you are really worried about their work, how they should put in more effort, yada yada yada. Then you become a good manager.

Leaders and managers are therefore entirely different in their constitution. A good manager, can never be a good leader, and a good leader is always the one who can never manage.
Take a look at any political party, or for that matter, any team in the IT industry. "They" say that you should be a leader, not a manager, but actually 'They" want you to be a dumb idiot who does only what "they" want you to do, not get out of line, because they are and always have been good managers.
Hence when you start listening good things about your leadership skills, start running in the other direction like Ussain Bolt running after his gold.

This isn't a new phenomenon in the world, but  this has been going on since ages, it happened in Greece, in Rome, it must have happened in Harappa too. It happens anywhere humans are involved, work is to be done, there is money and power to be grabbed by dollops, hence basically everywhere.

Just that, the corporate world lately has been catching on this tactic, especially the IT industry in India. Chronologically, the industry was set up by leaders. They were the original "they" with visions and ideas. Then they hired the foot soldiers to complete and compete with volume. Once they were unable to micro manage each aspect of their grand scheme, then came the managers. The new managers never had been leaders themselves but they were good copy cats. They copied the original leaders in everything, even about how to lead, and eventually become, "They" version 2.0, in the long run. And then started the phenomenon of choosing leaders rather than that of emergence of one. These leaders were in turn not actual leaders, since they were chosen by version 2.0 of "they", these were supposed to be puppets, so that "they" would never have to give up whatever they learned by copying and move into newer roles. But then as it has been happening all throughout history, there comes that one man, who turns out to be the wrong choice. Taking out the wrong choices and replacing them with more manageable resources, is quite the same as a gardener does weeding in his gardens. This was one thing which "they" did not have to copy or learn from previous versions. This they learned from the Theory of evolution, survival of the fittest.

The basic definition as comes out from a dictionary for a leader is,

leader |ˈliːdə| noun

the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country: the leader of a protest group | a natural leader.

That of a manager are slightly different, 

manager |ˈmanɪdʒə| noun

[ with adj. ] a person regarded in terms of their skill in managing resources.

Leaders are the ones to give vision, lead, inspire. Managers are the ones to make sure leaders don't go overboard. Once the managers became,"they",  leaders were not allowed to lead any longer.

One thing about Leaders has always been true, even without trying, they have always created leaders behind them, unwittingly, unassumingly. There will always be someone in their wake to step in to their shoes, to finish what the previous one started. But what the current trend suggests, what we see more and more happening is that the stooges are out numbering actual leaders, and this isn't a healthy trend for the industry.