Why Indian IT firms are hiring failed entrepreneurs(livemint.com)
livemint.com
Why Indian IT firms are hiring failed entrepreneurs
http://www.livemint.com/Industry/tDr4iXm1d5dYNPisSY9sHP/Why-Indian-IT-firms-are-hiring-failed-entrepreneurs.html
13 comments
Your snark is misplaced. Atleast they're trying to change.
You can't go from IT services to Silicon Valley overnight.
Though the article was right when it said :
"Some experts feel Indian tech firms should instead be freeing up the talent they already have to work on the next big thing."
This doesnt happen enough .I work at a small IT firm in India. Its trying to develop its own apps in a small subsidiary it incubated with its own revenue. They aren't very successful yet. But understand that things here are changing and eventually we will catch up. There's too much potential here . Its only a matter of time.
Though the article was right when it said :
"Some experts feel Indian tech firms should instead be freeing up the talent they already have to work on the next big thing."
This doesnt happen enough .I work at a small IT firm in India. Its trying to develop its own apps in a small subsidiary it incubated with its own revenue. They aren't very successful yet. But understand that things here are changing and eventually we will catch up. There's too much potential here . Its only a matter of time.
Erm, Indian IT services companies aren't exactly youngsters. Here are the 'birthdays' of the biggest four:
- TCS: 1968 - Infosys: 1981 - Wipro: 1966 - HCL: 1991
To clarify, I'm disputing your "overnight" remark.
- TCS: 1968 - Infosys: 1981 - Wipro: 1966 - HCL: 1991
To clarify, I'm disputing your "overnight" remark.
As long as their services divisions were growing fast they had no reason to look elsewhere. Now that growth in their traditional markets has slowed down they have no choice but to innovate.
> Now that growth in their traditional markets has slowed down...
Would you care to clarify what year "now" means?
Would you care to clarify what year "now" means?
An utterly confusing and glib article.
Firstly, it says Indian IT companies are hiring "failed entrepreneurs and successful VCs" without specifying what that means, or why that should be the case.
As another commenter has pointed out, the entrepreneurs being hired are "experienced" (I'd even say "ex-entrepreneurs"), not "failed" ones. There's no evidence as to why they "failed". Did they go bankrupt? Did they grow at less than industry average? And what company on earth goes looking for "failed entrepreneurs" by design?
Conversely, why are "successful VCs" joining staid services companies that are poor paymasters? Doesn't make sense.
The combination - "failed executives and successful VCs" is even more hilarity. What is the logic? [Edited a typo]
Firstly, it says Indian IT companies are hiring "failed entrepreneurs and successful VCs" without specifying what that means, or why that should be the case.
As another commenter has pointed out, the entrepreneurs being hired are "experienced" (I'd even say "ex-entrepreneurs"), not "failed" ones. There's no evidence as to why they "failed". Did they go bankrupt? Did they grow at less than industry average? And what company on earth goes looking for "failed entrepreneurs" by design?
Conversely, why are "successful VCs" joining staid services companies that are poor paymasters? Doesn't make sense.
The combination - "failed executives and successful VCs" is even more hilarity. What is the logic? [Edited a typo]
"And what company on earth goes looking for "failed entrepreneurs" by design?"
One weighing cost/benefit. Failed entrepreneurs will be easily an order of magnitude cheaper than their successful counterparts. If you think you can identify and correct why they failed, you have a good source of talent. e.g. "this person was great at product development but lousy at business administration, so we'll give her a CTO role"
There are workable strategies other than "get the very best, and pay the moon for them"
One weighing cost/benefit. Failed entrepreneurs will be easily an order of magnitude cheaper than their successful counterparts. If you think you can identify and correct why they failed, you have a good source of talent. e.g. "this person was great at product development but lousy at business administration, so we'll give her a CTO role"
There are workable strategies other than "get the very best, and pay the moon for them"
Normally that could be a reason. However, TCS, Infosys and Wipro have cash reserves of ~$3.5 billion, $4 billion, $1.5 billion respectively.
The acquisition of "failed entrepreneurs" will be at best in the single digit million dollar range.
And if the stated purpose of such acqui-hires is to "create disruptive technology", then I'd easily say they've got the cost/benefit equation turned on its head.
You can't be disruptive by not taking risks, paying peanuts or being a miserly penny pincher.
The acquisition of "failed entrepreneurs" will be at best in the single digit million dollar range.
And if the stated purpose of such acqui-hires is to "create disruptive technology", then I'd easily say they've got the cost/benefit equation turned on its head.
You can't be disruptive by not taking risks, paying peanuts or being a miserly penny pincher.
I just (temporarily) moved to Silicon Valley three weeks ago to work as a contractor at Google (fun and interesting!). The whole area of Silicon Valley has a vibe of energy and wealth. My wife's and my permanent home is in the mountains of Central Arizona where the ill effects of the current economy are so clearly visible. It feels good to be at an epicenter of wealth generation, and I am going to enjoy this area as much as possible while we are here.
I used to think that there are compelling economic reasons to start tech businesses in much less expensive cost of living areas, but it is difficult to argue with the success of his area.
It makes sense that Indian IT companies would also want an R&D presense here.
I used to think that there are compelling economic reasons to start tech businesses in much less expensive cost of living areas, but it is difficult to argue with the success of his area.
It makes sense that Indian IT companies would also want an R&D presense here.
They are not failed they are experienced entrepreneurs.
this is a big improvement over this article.
"Indian IT firm accused of discrimination against “stupid Americans"
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/indian...
"Indian IT firm accused of discrimination against “stupid Americans"
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/indian...
"Eyeing fresh business from outsourcing clients, IT firms are creating start-ups focused on disruptive technology "
riiight. You create 'disruptive' startups to get more T&M projects by projecting an image of kewl.
There is a lot of unintended hilarity in that article.
"A banking customer that has huge data is asking why I can’t do what Google is doing with data. "
Duh, that question is going to get a very long or a very short answer.
"At Wipro, Sajjad Hussain, a company veteran based in the San Francisco Bay Area, is busy creating a start-up organization that can compete with the best and most disruptive ventures in the valley. "
uh oh watch out stripe, YC etc. All your best engineers are going to leave for Wipro!
As someone who has friends working in TCS (and other "service companies in India) and so hear about the various shenanigans that go on in this particular bodyshop, I'll just say that any "entrepreneur" who joins TCS deserves everything (s)he gets.