[MUSIC PLAYING] ADI IGNATIUS: Hi. Welcome to Harvard Business
Review's The New World of Work. I'm Adi Ignatius, Editor in
Chief of Harvard Business Review. It's great to have you here. Every week on this show, I speak
to a CEO or another leading thinker. And we talk about this
reset moment for all of us in how we work, how we
collaborate, how we innovate. So we have a great guest today. But before I introduce him, a
word from our sponsor, Unisys. Where some see barriers,
Unisys sees breakthroughs. Unisys pushes what's possible
across digital workplace, app modernization,
cloud, and beyond. Unisys-- keep breaking through. If you like this
content, I also want to make a quick pitch for our
flagship podcast, IdeaCast. Same format as this. One of our editor hosts
speaks to somebody who has big ideas about the
workplace, about management, about the future of work. So check us out wherever
you get your podcasts. And we also have a newsletter
associated with this show, with The New World of Work. So if you're a subscriber,
go hbr.org/newsletters. It's something like that. And you can subscribe to The
New World of Work newsletter. So with that, I want to
introduce our guest today. And he is Tiger Tygarajan, who
is the CEO of Genpact, which is a global firm
that advises clients on digital transformation. Tiger himself helped
transform a division of General Electric, GE
Capital International Services, into Genpact, which
is a company that now has more than 100,000
employees and annual revenue of $4 billion. He originally served
as its COO, and since 2011, has been Genpact's CEO. So Tiger, welcome to the show. TIGER TYGARAJAN:
Ali, thank you so much for having me on the show. Thank you. ADI IGNATIUS: All right. Well, let's jump right into it. So as I said, a lot of
the work that you do is advising companies
that are going digital. I want to ask you about that
a little bit because I would imagine practically
every company describes itself at
this point as digital. But you're probably seeing
a more sophisticated-- you have a more
sophisticated lens on this. So talk about-- what is
the biggest blind spot for companies that are
on this transformation? TIGER TYGARAJAN: So Adi, it's
a great question because we're clearly seeing every
company think through, what does digital
transformation mean? And the first thing
I'll say is we've got to distinguish what one
could call digitization, which is automating processes,
making it straight through, touchless, just no
human touch it, as compared to digital
transformation, which is really running the entire
business differently, having people take
decisions differently, leveraging technology,
and tools, and the cloud, and AI, and machine learning,
dramatically improving user experience,
customer experience, all of those things. So parsing those two
would be important. And when it comes to
digital transformation, one of the big
learnings we've had is that it's not just
about technology. It's about processes. It's about the data
underlying those processes. It's about people
because in the end, you really want to have people
change the way they work. And that's where you really
achieve digital transformation. So if you ask me for the
single biggest roadblock, it's how do you drive change
through an organization? And by the way, the more
successful an organization, the more that challenge
increases, as you can imagine. ADI IGNATIUS: So
just to the audience, if you have questions for
Tiger, put them into the chat. And I'll try to get to
audience questions later, but I want to pick up on what
you were just talking about. So you were saying
one of the keys to digital transformation
is how we're interacting with our colleagues. What do you mean
by that, exactly? What's the digital version? What's the most effective
version of that? TIGER TYGARAJAN: So there
are many versions of that. So let's take a
couple of examples. So think about a bank that lends
to small businesses, something that's very important for
the economy, something that a lot of banks do. And the application comes in. Typically, someone in
an operations function puts all the data that is
available in the application onto the system. And then the system
then lines up and takes the application to
a risk officer, whose job it is to evaluate
their application, blah, blah, and take a decision. Now the reality is that
you have a human who is prone to making errors,
who has biases, et cetera, often do that underwriting. You change that to a
completely transformed way of running that
lending operation and approval of a loan. You could think about the
application coming in, getting read by a machine, getting
ported onto the technology. The technology then uses
past data and patterns to say here's the
kind of prediction that I have about
this customer-- payments, what the
customer likes, the interest rate that works,
should you approve or not, et cetera. And then finally,
the risk officer then takes a look at it, and
then takes a final decision. You can drop cycle time
for approving a loan from-- sometimes, it takes 20 days-- to minutes and hours. And the impact that has on
the customer, the delight of the customer, the
fact that it actually drives economic value
for the customer, and therefore for
everyone, is what really digital transformation
is about in that one example. And you can apply
the same example to supply chain, where
a retailer places an order for milk, or
chocolates, or cheese. And that has to be processed. Now all of that can be
done, again, by the machine, including getting the truck,
getting the right truck, having the best route,
driving low carbon footprint, not just lower cost. Those are the kind of things
that people are really beginning to do in order to
change the way a business runs. ADI IGNATIUS: All right. So if you're talking
about machines, machine learning,
machine response, we've got to talk about OpenAI. We've got to talk about ChatGPT. So we did the show last week
from Davos, the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. And I probably had more
conversations about ChatGPT than about any other topic. So everybody's playing with it. I'm sure you're playing with
it, experimenting with it. I'd love your thoughts on-- what is that going
to do to business? What is that going
to do to jobs? I'm amazed by the technology. I'm also aware of its
limitations at this point, but I think it's going
to get better quickly. What are some of your early
thoughts about ChatGPT and what it says about
the future of AI? TIGER TYGARAJAN: Yeah,
I think it's obviously very, very topical. I've had a couple of hundred of
my team spend a couple of days kicking off the year just
the last couple of days. And ChatGPT has been one
of the central themes that people kept bringing up. I'll start by saying ChatGPT is
one more step in the evolution and the sophistication of
AI and AI technologies. Not that unexpected. This progression
has been expected, and will continue
to make progress. And the view that we've
always had, I've always had, is that it will change
the way work gets done. I've had a clear view that
it does not replace labor. It changes the way that
labor will get used. It changes the skills that
are needed, et cetera. I almost correlate this to the
invention, and the building, and the spread of calculators
or Excel spreadsheets. Go back to the time when
we didn't have calculators. It was important for people
to know how to add, subtract, multiply, divide. And those were tests conducted
before you hired someone into a particular job. You don't do that these
days because everyone uses a computer. Everyone uses Excel. Everyone uses a calculator. So it becomes a common
platform that everyone uses. Now the question is
what can you do with it? How do you use it? How do you create value? So our view is that
ChatGPT is going to open up a whole set of
avenues for value creation. I heard someone talk
about an example just in the last few
days, where a developer has been able to
use ChatGPT in order to pull government documents
and serve it easily to someone deep inside a village
in India in order to have the farmer take a better
decision on getting government subsidy, or ordering
seeds, or fertilizers. So I think the vision that
I've always had about AI is that it's going to make the
cost of so many things lower, that it's going to increase
the spread of education, healthcare, all of those
things, where sometimes, the barrier for a couple of
billion people in the world is that the cost of those
things is very high. And the spread is very
difficult. So very optimistic view on this. ADI IGNATIUS: Yeah. That's great. And then those are very
positive use cases. At the very least, we're talking
about a short-term dislocation. Seeing the ability of
ChatGPT to write code quickly that's effective makes
you wonder about-- code is the same thing. The people who used to sit
around adding and subtracting were replaced by machines. Are coders going to be
replaced by machines? By the way, are
editors are going to be replaced by machines? I could see the need
for an editor or two to make sure the machine is
coming up with good content. But aren't we talking
about far fewer individuals needed to collaborate
with the machines as they get better and faster? And I just wonder what
all this white collar labor is going to do. TIGER TYGARAJAN: So
the answer is yes. We will probably
need far fewer x, y, and z, all the kind of
people you described. But we'll need a whole
set of new people that we didn't need before. One of the things that I
believe is going to happen-- and this is a
journey that actually has been on for some time. The importance of soft skills
in everything in the world is just going to keep rising. The importance of
building relationships, empathy, delighting
the customer, really understanding the
needs of the customer by actually listening. Then the curiosity that
a human being brings-- I don't think yet AI
has been programmed to actually become curious. In fact, AI has been programmed
for the reverse, which is, what has the pattern told us so far? And therefore, what moves
should make, whereas curiosity actually says that's the
move I probably should make, but I want to explore something
that I haven't done before. So I want to go north even
though the machine says go south. Only a human can do that. So we are big believers
in augmented intelligence rather than artificial
intelligence. And transition always has pain. Every technology
transition has had pain. Reskilling therefore takes
on a whole new meaning. It's been going on for some
years now in the world. And I think it just takes
on a whole new meaning as these technologies become
more pervasive, ubiquitous, and usable. ADI IGNATIUS: So
one thing ChatGPT is very bad at is
a sense of humor. And I keep trying to get
it to write decent jokes. And they're always terrible. They're just basic puns. And it is responsive if
you say, that's not funny. That's just a basic pun. It'll say, all right
and try another attempt, and try another attempt. But I think the joke
writers are safe, at least for another few years. But on the reskilling
question, all right. So this isn't the
first technology that has prompted a
conversation like this. I have people tell me sometimes
we have good intentions. We're not very
good at reskilling. Whether it's on national
levels, or corporate levels, or by any other educational
platform, we talk a good game, but we're not very
good at reskilling. Give me your thoughts on where
we are, and what we need to do. Because we're talking about
large numbers of people for various reasons
who need reskilling to succeed going forward. TIGER TYGARAJAN: Yes, Adi,
that has been a problem in the world for some time now. You're right. And the bad news is I think
we still have a long way to go, both in
terms of the impact and therefore the response
in terms of reskilling. The good news-- the glass half
empty, the optimist view-- and I am an optimist-- is that
over the last five-odd years, corporations, businesses
such as ours-- but we're not alone in this--
have taken significant steps to reskill their workforce. And the reason to do that
is actually very simple because if you find
a way to do that, it becomes a
competitive advantage. You actually excite
your employees. You actually make them
valuable for your clients and your customers as they
learn these technologies and use them. It requires a whole
new set of motivation, incentives, time allocation. It requires an understanding
that I've always had, which is I don't
think any more life is about 20 years of education
followed by 40 years of work followed by, let's say, another
40 years of "retired life." It's actually about continuous,
every couple of years, refresh, reskill. Even maybe take time off to
do that a couple of months. And I think businesses must
have programs that do that. Platforms that allow
reskilling to happen have become so much easier
to use, so much better. And it's not about big
classroom training programs. It's bit-sized,
video-based, gamified. We've done that
across the company. In the last 18 months, we've
had 70,000 out of 110,000 of our global workforce
enroll themselves and learn data analytics at the
base level using a program that we call Data Bridge. And it's caught on like
wildfire because everyone needs to learn, wants to learn. And of course, we've
been driving it. So now governments, educational
institutions-- they all also have to approach this. But I sometimes think that at
least in the Western economies and the more democratic
and capitalist economies, corporations such as ours
have to take the lead. ADI IGNATIUS: So I want
to bring in a question from our audience
that's on topic. I don't want to just talk about
high level technology and AI. But this is a good,
provocative question. This is from Chander in Zurich. And the question is, how could
generative AI like ChatGPT potentially disrupt the business
model for a firm like Genpact? TIGER TYGARAJAN: Oh, a lot. [LAUGHS] A lot. ADI IGNATIUS: Don't worry. Chatham House Rules here. So you can speak freely. TIGER TYGARAJAN: It's a lot. And when I'm responding to that
question-- which by the way, a great question-- I interpret the word
"disrupt" in a positive and a problem sense, a
threat and an opportunity. So left to its own devices, the
work that we do will change. And if you don't do anything
about it, then of course, we are going to get disrupted. But the smart people,
businesses like ours, and other businesses
like ours, will actually say, therefore, I'm
going to find a way to use that technology. So if you think about--
at the core, often, the work we do is take
information from one source, take another information
from another source, often from within the company-- our client's company-- and then
take information, sometimes, from the outside world. It could be the weather report. It could be what's happening
with interest rates. And then bring
all that together, apply mathematical and
algorithmic models to then take a decision that then gets
put back into the system. At its core, a
lot of the work we do, a lot of the work that
knowledge workers do, is that. And then there are people
who build those models, code those models, et cetera. You could have a ChatGPT
generative AI thing to actually do some of that. Having said that, it could also
write the report that comes out of that, too, that says this
is the decision that I took. And here is the rationale
for the decision. All of that, you could actually
have that ChatGPT generative AI do it. However, I would
argue that you still sometimes need a lot of
information from the customer. And it's not being provided. So you've got to
call the customer up, explain to them what
they need to provide. And they, then,
need to provide it. Two, you need a human to
say this is a gray zone. I don't think this is
the right decision. I'm actually going to increase
the risk in my portfolio. And therefore, I'm going to
actually take a decision yes, even though the credit score
here right now says a no. So every aspect of the work
that knowledge workers do will change. I don't think there's
any denying that. There are going to
be firms that are going to grab that disruption
and be the disruptor. And there are going to be
others who will get disrupted. So the question is
who's more agile? Who's more nimble? Who has a culture to
embrace new things? Who has the culture to reskill? That's going to
differentiate the winners from the losers in every
industry-- in our industry as well. ADI IGNATIUS: So here's
another question. This is from Autumn from the US,
from the city of Indianapolis, who's asking how do you see AI
implementation into education, specifically to prepare students
with these skills we're talking about needed for the future? In other words, to
what extent will AI be part of this retooling,
reskilling effort? TIGER TYGARAJAN:
Phenomenal question. And actually, it goes
to the core of often, when technologies start
maturing and start disrupting, the answer and solution often
is the technology itself. So if you take the
case of AI and you say it's going to disrupt jobs-- however, that same technology
is going to create jobs. Education is a great
example of that. As I said, pick a number. A billion and a half
people in the world do not have access to
education of the kind that, actually, they should
have partly driven by time, asynchronous nature of their
education being required. The creative back and forth
that often only a teacher can do and that's very
difficult in places like deep into the interiors of
Africa, India, Latin America, and so on-- and all of a sudden, on
digital platforms with AI sitting behind the
scenes as an engine and understanding the person
who needs to get educated so that the right
material gets served in 10-minute, 15-minute
bit-sized, consumable, video, gamified. And dropping that cost
down to literally cents versus tens of dollars
will change the game. You suddenly bring a
billion and a half people into the education workforce. The pie for education
will expand. The cost will reduce. And therefore, more course
content will be needed. More people will be needed
to make it gamified. I can talk about a whole
set of new industries that will get created
just on that one question. ADI IGNATIUS: Are you bullish
on the metaverse at this point? TIGER TYGARAJAN: Long term, yes. And I want to
explain bullishness. I'm bullish that it
will become a thing that will become part of the way
people live their lives, work gets done, business
gets transacted, et cetera, et cetera. I worry a little
bit about what it does to human and
social interaction. Will it further drag humans
into the virtual world at the expense of
time being spent in the real world with
real people with nature? And we can go on and on. Over a hundred-year period,
I guess in an accelerated fashion, that's been happening. And I do worry
about that because I think there is real value
created in the world when people come together and
debate with each other, fight with each other a little
bit in a constructive way. I worry a little bit that
all of that joy of that gets taken away. I also worry about what
it does to mental health, and so on, and so forth. So still a long way to go. Bullish in what it will
do and can do, and not so bullish in the
impact it actually has. And how do you balance
that, like all technologies? ADI IGNATIUS: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Good question. All right, I want to
shift a little bit. And I know that
in your consulting work, in your engagement,
you think a lot about ESG. You talk a lot about ESG. And ESG is problematic. I think at least in
the US, the right thinks ESG considerations
are too "woke," and that companies should just
think about generating profits, and that everything else
will take care of itself. On the left, there's
a feeling that ESG as we measure
it is insufficient. And for anyone who doesn't
know the jargon, I apologize. ESG-- it's Environmental,
Social, and Governance. And companies are ranked
by independent observers on their ESG ratings, and
on their ESG potential. And it increasingly drives
investor decisions and things. I almost think we
need to throw out ESG, come up with a new
term and a new approach. But anyway, we're in
the ESG era still. How do you think about--
what is a valuable way of looking at and thinking
about ESG at this point? TIGER TYGARAJAN: It's
a great question, Adi. And I'll start by saying maybe
the word, and the phrase, and the acronym
should be thrown out. It doesn't matter. What really matters
in our thinking and in my thinking
is business is about being sustainable
in the long run, in serving four stakeholders. I think that clarity is
incredibly clear for us because those four stakeholders,
are clients, are talent, are investors and
shareholders, and are the community and society. All four are equal stakeholders. And the reason they are
equal is because they feed into each other. Obviously, you've got to
satisfy your shareholders. You've got to
satisfy your clients. That's an obvious
virtuous cycle. Talent is at the
middle of all of that. And that talent makes a
difference to both investors and to clients. And none of that is possible
if you can't do two things. You need to attract
talent and excite them. And I would argue
until anyone comes here saying our strategy
is to attract talent. And in order to attract talent,
we must be able to explain how we are helping our planet
sustain itself in the long run because everything
shows us that it can't. And if we don't
have a role there, I may not be able
to attract talent. I may not be able
to serve my clients. So it's very clear to us that
we can call it by whatever name. Our strategy of long-term,
sustainable value creation for the four
stakeholders requires us to focus on things
like the environment, the climate, on society,
on diversity, on inclusion so that we can get the best
minds to attack problems. And of course, good
governance-- so I'm not I'm not conflicted on the word ESG. It doesn't matter because
it's core to our strategy. The problem is when you keep
it separate and you say, I have an objective that
I need to serve these four stakeholders, or
three stakeholders. And I have this other
thing called ESG, which I need to satisfy some people. We don't think
about it that way. We think ESG is core and
central to long-term strategy of companies. ADI IGNATIUS: So I think that
was the rhetoric, at least, of a lot of CEOs of
big public companies for the past several years. We've had a great run for
the past several years. We're in tougher
times right now. There may or may not
be recessionary threats in certain parts of the world,
not in all parts of the world. So I wonder-- and you're having
conversations with people out there. As times get tough, we're
certainly seeing the layoffs, particularly in tech,
and finance, and media, although not limited
to those industries. So I wonder to what extent
thinking about everything you just listed--
sustainability, diversity and inclusion, all these things. When times get tough
and tough decisions have to be made about
where the money goes, do you worry that the emphasis
that's been put in these areas could fall to the side? TIGER TYGARAJAN: No,
Adi, you're right. And that's no different
than many other strategic imperatives that an enterprise
and a business undertakes. And when there is short-term
pressure on serving, let's say, investors,
and shareholders, and so on, you then
have to evaluate those long-term
strategic imperatives, and the investment, and
the time, and effort, and the money that
goes against it. I think great
companies find a way to navigate through such tough
times in a way where they try and protect some of those
strategic imperatives because they know that just
as the world could be slowing down, and there's a recession,
it's going to come out of it. When it comes out
of it, the winners are going to be
those who invested in those strategic imperatives
through a cycle like this. So I think business research
has shown so often that in times like these, the
winners and losers-- there's a shift
and in the tables. And those who tend to win
tend to be the people who didn't take their eye
off the long-term ball, and found a way
through other means, including digitization,
and digital transformation, and applying
technologies, to preserve some of the longer-term
investment they are doing. Because that allows them to take
off when the economy takes off. So great question-- will
come under pressure. I think finding a
way to navigate that without killing it is
a very important goal of great companies
for the long haul. ADI IGNATIUS: Yeah. Tiger, one of the reasons that
we've done this show is we just feel this is a reset
moment for business, for how we think about business. And part of that is what
the pandemic has done, how it turned
everything upside down, and what we learned
from that experience. Part of it is new technology. And there are other
factors as well. I guess to start this
part of the conversation, you're a company of, I think,
roughly 100,000 employees. To what extent are
you the same company with the same
culture now that you were in 2019 before the
pandemic and before some of these shifts? And to what extent
have you changed? TIGER TYGARAJAN: It's
a great question, Adi. I'll start out
with a meta answer, saying our belief is that there
are core parts of our culture that we always
try and preserve-- our maniacal focus
on our client; or the way our teams collaborate
with only one objective, to solve the client problem;
the way we drive curiosity and learning in the company. At the same time, we've
always been a big believer that culture is not static. You've got to find new things
to incorporate into that culture because that's what
the world requires. And if there's one thing that
the pandemic has taught us, and all this digital
transformation has taught us, it's the exponential
curve on change. And I actually believe that
change is here to stay. The pace of this change in the
world on a variety of topics is here to stay. What that means is
that it's therefore important for businesses such
as ours-- and we've changed, and we continue to change--
to become much more agile. And you have to do that
now in an environment where it's actually different. It's no longer everyone who
comes to the office every day in every location in the world. We operate from 35 countries,
120 sites across the globe. Our business, of
course, has a set of people who are often
constantly traveling and consulting with clients,
but a set of other people who sit in operating centers. That world has changed. It's no longer 100% in-office. It's a mixture. It's hybrid. It's two days a week, three
days a week, five days a week in some cases, five days
a month in some cases, and a week and 1/4
in other cases. So it's a lot of variation. And in that variation, how
do you preserve culture? As new people come
into the company, how do you mentor
them, sponsor them? How do they learn? What is apprenticeship? All of those are undergoing
change as we speak. One example I'll give you-- we spend three days here,
a group of 200 of us. And normally, we would
have spent one day to kick off the year. We deliberately spent three
days physically all together. Why? Because we don't do this
as often as before-- run into each other in an
office, et cetera, et cetera. So we decided we're going to
invest in three full days. And then people will
go off, do their thing for probably another
four or five months, and then bring
them back together. So rhythms are changing. Communication is
at an extreme high. The pace of that change requires
us to communicate continuously. Obviously, things like
videoconferencing, and Zoom, and the ease with
which that can be done has raised the game and
our ability to do that. But now our job is to
leverage those things. So lots of changes
as we speak are very important in the way we
deal with our clients as well. Clients have become
very comfortable doing video conference
calls, and Zoom calls. However, I think there's
still a requirement where you make that social connect. You break bread. You share experiences. You have a debate on a
very contentious topic. And you come out of that
and say, I trust you. The world that we are in
and the world in the future requires even more trust. That requires real human
connect to continue. And that's part of
the culture we've got to find a way to
keep maintaining-- more difficult than
before, but more tools available than before. ADI IGNATIUS: So you talk
with ease about change, about embracing change. Not everyone does. And I'm going to raise
a question that's come in from Veronica in Prague. And the question is why do so
many companies resist change? TIGER TYGARAJAN: It's the
ultimate question in business. It's the ultimate question
in your first question, Adi, that you started off
this conversation with, which is at the core of
digital transformation, it's actually about
change and driving change. Humans are humans. If something has worked, and
it's worked for a long time, and it's been successful,
there is no reason to change. And who are you to
tell me to change? So first is why do
I need to change? And who are you to
tell me to change? And then understanding
each person's motivations, making the collective
motivation the same rather than two motivations
that pull against each other-- that, I think, will always be
the central topic of society irrespective of
generative AI or not. And if anything, it'll probably
increase in its importance as more and more of those
technologies can be leveraged, but only if change is embraced. It's scary to embrace change. I don't know if I'm going to
be successful in this new way of working, even though
on theory and on paper, it looks like the
right thing to do. I don't know if
I'm going to win, or my colleague is going to win. Lots of things like that-- I'm biased. I don't like the person
who's telling me because I don't trust that person. All of those things come
in the way of change. Our business actually
exists to some extent because our job is to help
our clients drive change. ADI IGNATIUS: All right,
so here's another question. This is from Manu in Delhi. By the way, I love
the global nature of this audience and the
questions that are coming in. So thank you all for putting
questions in the chat. And this is about
emotional intelligence. The question is how can an
organization successfully create awareness on
emotional intelligence, as it seems necessary for
how we collaborate and grow these days? TIGER TYGARAJAN: Again,
a great question. And I'll start
with storytelling. I think good old storytelling
is still the best way. Examples, real-- the storyteller
should be the protagonist. So it's about the person. It's me telling my story. It has to be a humble,
exposing, vulnerable story. Then you have an audience
that is listening. The stories must come
from diverse people so that the listener then says
this is not a one side story. And then making heroes of
those who demonstrate that in a client's situation,
in a team situation, in a peer group situation, and
showing that when they do that, not only do they become heroes,
but they actually create value for the stakeholders
I talked about. So I think this is,
again, not something that you take
lightly, not something that you can teach in a class. You've got to live it every day. It has to become
part of culture. And one of the best definitions
I've heard about culture-- not my definition, but I
love it-- is culture is something where
the way people behave without a standard
operating procedure, and without anyone
watching them. That's culture. And I'm a big believer that
culture drives everything. ADI IGNATIUS: I love that. So I can't let you go without-- I know you're a big cricket fan. So I'm going to ask you--
this is the type of question that you ask to ChatGPT,
which is so talk about cricket as a metaphor for how we
work and live together. TIGER TYGARAJAN: Oh, my God. You've hit a--
what is it called? What is the opposite
of a raw nerve? You've hit an amazing-- ADI IGNATIUS: I don't know. TIGER TYGARAJAN:
--passion of mine. ADI IGNATIUS: Your vein
that is spewing blood. TIGER TYGARAJAN: Exactly. Our board meetings
are set up based on a calendar that is based
on, when is the India cricket team playing its big matches? And based on that,
the board meeting is set up so it doesn't clash. It's that important. But to your question,
it's a team sport. So you can learn
a lot from that. It's a sport where there
are so many variables. I think the best
description I have is compare cricket to baseball. And one of the things that's
interesting about baseball is that you have a hitter. You have a ball. You pitch your ball. It's all very similar. However, a lot of variables
that are there in cricket are taken out in baseball. The ball, when pitched,
cannot hit the turf. In cricket, most of the
time, it hits the turf. Once it hits the turf, it can
go in all kinds of directions. You can make it catch
the turf and spin. If it's a wet wicket,
something happens. If there's dew,
something happens. If it's a hot, humid
day, something happens. So you just have
so many variables. It's so unpredictable. It's so volatile. I can go on and on. And that teaches you
a lot about grit. If there's a game that teaches
you grit, it's cricket. This completely freaks
out all my US colleagues. You can play a game of
cricket for five days between two arch rivals-- India versus Pakistan. And at the end of the days, the
two captains can come together and say, you didn't win. I didn't win. We'll come back another day. That's a crazy game. [LAUGHS] ADI IGNATIUS: No, we
don't understand that. And you'd probably be rocking
a sweater at that point, too. And we don't understand
that, either. But anyway, I'm a baseball fan. Well, here's the deal. You will come to a baseball
game with me at some point. I will go to a cricket
match with you. TIGER TYGARAJAN: Done. ADI IGNATIUS: And we'll
continue this conversation. TIGER TYGARAJAN:
The cricket match has to be in the best cricket
stadium in the world-- Melbourne, Melbourne
Cricket Ground. ADI IGNATIUS: All
right, that's a deal. Tiger, I want to thank
you for joining us today. It was really great to
hear your perspectives. A lot of audience questions. Thank you for being here. TIGER TYGARAJAN: Thank you, Adi. Really enjoyed it. Thank you. ADI IGNATIUS: All right. So I just want to quickly
say my guest next week will be Janice
Bryant Howroyd, who is an entrepreneur, a
businesswoman, an author, and the Founder and CEO
of the ActOne Group, which is the largest
privately held minority woman-owned personnel
company founded in the US. She's the first
African-American woman to build and own a
billion-dollar company. So make sure to tune
in next week for that. And before we go, another word
from our sponsor, from Unisys. Where some see barriers,
Unisys sees breakthroughs. Unisys pushes what's possible
across digital workplace, app modernization,
cloud, and beyond. Unisys-- keep breaking through. So thank you for being with us. Thank you many,
many, many people all over the world for listening,
for putting in your questions. I'm Adi Ignatius, and this
is The New World of Work. [MUSIC PLAYING]
