People should really know about statistics and the fallacy of generalising based upon few samples. Take this post for example. 3 main reasons and I quote:
1. Because of their experience with democracy and markets, plus the English language, Indians seem better able to exist in the ranks of large Western organizations than the nationals of the other BRICs.
2. Indian companies also are proving adept at absorbing Western management practices, particularly from the likes of General Electric. So the companies that started out as mere outsourcers, such as Infosys and Wipro, are now vying to emerge as full-fledged multinationals that can compete against Accenture and IBM.
3. A third factor is that after being starved for capital for so many years, the Bombay stock market is at an all-time high and that is fueling the market capitalizations of many Indian companies.
On the face of it, yes, great news, Indian CEO's rampaging all over, but if you delve deeper, none work out. Look at Malaysia or Philippines, same thing with democracy and markets. Absorbing western management practises, erm, has he forgotten the history behind the East India Company? or the fact that India was generating almost 25% of the world's value addition before the Brits came, so what's this big deal about western management practises? And what practises? And finally, the indian companies were not facing a problem because of lack of capital but because of regulation, see how Tata and Birla expanded before liberalisation took place. Also, a statement like, @money is not a problem because of FX reserves@ is such a stunning economic clanger that I dont even know where to start. And just what does that have to do with Indian Managers?
Bah! If this is the advice one gets for appointing management, then all I can say is to pray to some Gods.
All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!