The man who founded India’s second largest IT services company three decades ago is getting ready to hang up his boots in a year’s time — an event that has turned the spotlight right back on the company and its much heralded chairman. In an interview with TOI over a south Indian lunch at Infosys’ plush campus in Bangalore , Murthy spoke on why he isn’t losing sleep over the brouhaha at US’ protectionist rhetoric, on why he will never sacrifice margins and profitability for revenues and of course, on his succession and his rightly earned time “to smell the coffee” . Excerpts:
Is this the most protectionist that you have seen the US to be? Earlier, there was a lot of rhetoric, now there are legislating to make outsourcing difficult...
No. First of all, we (Indian industry) do very little work with the government, either state or federal. Therefore, whatever happened in Ohio is not going to have much impact on us. As far as the H1, L1 visas are concerned, you know, having a financial filter to vary policy is probably the best because that way there will be a certain burden on us but also an incentive to innovate, to come out with better value propositions for our customers.
You will not lose any sleep over it?
No, I don’t think so.
But the fear is that a window has been opened. Now that they have legislated on one thing (H1, L1 visas) they might do on other fronts too?
You know, it was very interesting to listen to Anand Sharma (union commerce minister ) who was on our campus recently. I never thought a time would come when an Indian Cabinet minister would be talking about the protectionist tendencies of the US! I never thought that I would live to see that. I think these are very clearly examples of how the global scenario has changed. Frankly, looking at it from the perspective of President Obama, I can understand him. For a nation that is generally used to 4-5 % unemployment, to have that touch 9-10 % and where employment is the prime issue in elections, I can understand him. But I know one thing.
The solution for us is not to become strident or jingoistic. It would be better to use innovation, use ideas by which we become more indispensable to our customer. You see, today, China does not talk. They have demonstrated by becoming more and more indispensable to the global economic order thanks to their hard work and commitment. China has understood that talk can take you only so far.
If we, together — industry, individual companies, academia and government — can make Indian companies more and more indispensable to the new world economic order, that would be enough. China is a fantastic example — a nation which has become the second largest economy globally in a matter of 32 years. Isn’t it extraordinary? Somehow, nobody says here, “Why don’t we learn from China?” Arnold Schwarzenegger goes to China and says — I find this unbelievable — that China will be one of the two countries they will shortlist to build California’s high-speed metro! Coming back to the Indian market, in the last few quarters, your competitors seem to be catching up with you. Cognizant is doing brilliantly. I am very happy for them.
There is a feeling that Infosys has gotten conservative...
No. Look at it this way. We are growing in some ways more than the industry average. Other than Cognizant , we have been growing pretty well. We have maintained our margin difference. Also there’s a difference between growth at $3 billion and at $5 billion. If you look at our growth rate, when we were $3 billion, certainly we also grew fast. While I congratulate and am happy with the performance of Cognizant as an Indian, we must look at facts and data and then come to conclusions.
There’s a feeling that Infosys has lost its mojo. It isn’t setting the lead the way it used to.
No. Kris (S Gopalakrishnan, Infosys CEO) has done a fantastic job. I am extremely happy. He has been the first CEO under these tough conditions and he has done a pretty good job. The only area where we have not been able to do as well as we want to is in acquisitions.
So not chasing acquisitions for top-line growth is deliberate?
No. But unless we find a candidate that we are very confident will add significant value to us, we don’t want to do it. I don’t want to mention specific names, but you please look at all those people who have done acquisitions and whether they have indeed got value. It’s not that clear. We don’t want to do acquisitions that bring down our margins significantly because we don’t play the top-line game. We have never done that.
But the over-emphasis on bottom-line at the expense of volumes...
If anybody can be held responsible for that, it’s me. It’s my belief that in the end, you have to make good bottom-line . That’s what gives you cash to invest in people, in new technologies , new initiatives, new infrastructure , etc. I don’t think there is another company — I may be wrong — which has invested as much as we have in physical/technological infrastructure. We have 650 fellows in our SETlabs (R&D arm). We work with several universities . The kind of facilities we have provided our employees, I don’t think anybody else has.
No comments:
Post a Comment