After the dot com bust, they only interesting consulting job I could get as a 5 month gig for an Indian company writing a Java Sharepoint clone. They did not pay very well, but the work was satisfying. I have also had two remote gigs from China and a few from Europe. Earth seems flat (in the Thomas Freidman sense) to me! Btw, I live in the mountains of Central Arizona.
On some projects, we work with an Indian outsourcing company (not necessarily an off-shoring company) to get temporary programmers to assist with a project. There have been a few cases where we went to India to find workers, and the Indian company came back to the city and found us a local contractor when local outsourcing companies could not. In talking with these people, they got more work from partnering with Indian companies than they did with local companies.
When I worked tech support, I asked this same question of my management. The answer was professionalism. The same reason why most interviewing experts or interviewing articles will tell you to put on a tie for a phone interview: the way you dress influences the way you comport yourself. Doing professional tech support requires a professional behavior that a t-shirt and jeans won't bring about. This might be different if you're doing tech support for a valley start-up.
I don't have studies, but perhaps I can explain why people believe it and why I think it's plausible.
I am betting that the reason you doubt it is that it doesn't work for you, because you don't have the right associations with business attire. The effect is psychological, so it only works if you have the right prejudices. Personally, I associate suits and such with superficiality, paralysis, and unproductive rule-following. I associate relaxation with high performance and dishevelledness with focus. That reflects my background, though: I grew up in an academic household, idolizing rumpled intellectuals like Einstein and Turing. Apparently, it's more common to associate business attire with hard work, focus, and diligence and to associate relaxation and informality with goofing off. It might be strange to others, but wearing shorts automatically puts a lot of people in a mindset to slack off, and a tie does the opposite. I know one guy who puts on a tie every day for the same reason a programmer might dim the lights and put on headphones: to get focused and keep his head where it belongs. Taking the tie off is like the buzzer at the end of a game. He pushes hard and maintains focus until the tie comes off, and then poof, his mind is gone, moved on to family, dinner, and whatever games will be on TV that night. Even if I don't share that mentality, it sounds like it's useful to him.
Also, keep in mind that while some highly motivated people resent business wear because we dislike the conflation of social presentation and performance, many people hate business wear because they do conflate social presentation and performance, and business attire makes them feel obligated to focus and perform, which they do not enjoy doing. Even if we make common cause with such slackers, we should keep the difference in mind ;-)
That's funny. You know, thinking about it that way, I thought about what mode of thinking I get into when I put on ties. And to be honest, I can only think of ties for fancy parties these days. A good tie can make me feel like a million bucks paired with the right shirt and suit, whether I'm dancing to at someone's wedding, volunteering at some black tie charity event, or applauding speeches at some annual company bash. So when I put on a tie, I guess the theme song that would pop up is not Eye of the Tiger, but I Got a Feeling. :)
Anecdata here, but I've been wearing a tie for a few years, and while I don't think it has changed my behavior much, it definitely changes how other people treat me.
It's actually a little creepy how that one little difference of putting on a tie changes other people's behaviors in so many tiny daily interactions. Things like: when you approach a door, escalator, getting in and out of elevators, people let me go first. People are definitely nicer to me, cashiers smile more, etc. It's noticeable, and a little weird.
We're conditioned from a young age to respect the tie. So, it's not crazy to think that forcing everyone to wear ties in an office will make them a little nicer to each other. I do think it affects people at a subconscious level.
I don't believe it's just about how your comport yourself to clients, but also to establish a hierarchy and pecking order within the organization itself.
The employer may feel that the caliber of people they are hiring requires a very strict, by-the-books mode of operation, and forcing uniforms of people goes a long way towards showing who's in charge, and enforcing discipline.
Yes, but I'm sure you crawled with a more professional deportment. I can tell, even now, at a much later date, and a location indeterminate to that of the crawling.
People want to match their behaviour with their attitude. Usually we think behaviour follows attitude, but if behaviour is constrained in some way, people tend to warp their attitude to fit the behaviour. That's one of the arguments for dress codes in the workplace, it puts you in the role, and also explains why you feel happier when you smile, etc.
Also, we sound subtly different when smiling, it's a bio-physical thing too, not just a manifestation of psychological state. I believe most people can actually detect if the person on the phone is smiling or not.
Normally that's just un-thinking control. Although if they're hiring from "the park bench," as the article says, then there might be a minimum personal hygiene standard that dressing up might maintain as a side effect.
Yes, this is true.I know a lot of companies that are hiring more in the US and opening offices. This trend is going to continue. USA has some exceptional people and skillsets, and so do Indians. It will be a win win situation.
This is what the term "negative externalities" was invented to cover. It is a win-win situation for those who successfully outsource - getting good work at lower cost.
It is a win-win situation for those who get decent work. However, it is not a win-win situation for those who cannot get a job or who take a big pay cut or worse conditions because so much of the work in their sector has been outsourced. Perhaps you could say it is a win-win-lose situation.
I disagree. The app economy has changed that and is creating jobs. Let me give you an example. An American has a great idea, but does not have the money to hire an expensive or the skills to develop an app. He gets the app developed in a lower cost company, and the app becomes hugely successful.
Now the same person ends up hiring more designers and marketing folks in US. That person has more discretionary income that is spent locally. The technology companies like Apple, Google and a lot of smaller ones end up hiring more people.
We have had a lot of clients who have done well and had the same path. I was deeply moved when one of our US clients told me that the app we had developed helped him pay the bills during the darkest days of the 2008 recession.
People need to understand this debate better
1. The app economy has democratised the idea to customer strategy. Outsourcing here provides a huge leverage. This is not like some IT department cutting down jobs and moving them to lower cost places.
2. The world is flat now, in terms of skills and not costs.
3. More non US companies are hiring in America and setting up offices there. We are doing the same.
Like you describe, out-sourcing generally provides a net-benefit to society by providing cheaper goods here and jobs in India. But it does not necessary produce a net-benefit to the US, since the trade off is cheaper goods but fewer American jobs.
As a global citizen, I'm not concerned about the latter.
Problem is, other countries aren't necessarily as open as we are to outsourcing and foreign labour. For instance, Western universities have many Asian professors, especially in Math, Science, and Engineering. But South Korean universities very rarely employ foreign professors, at least not full professors.
This goes for many jobs in South Korea -- they simply don't want foreigners to do it, because foreigners aren't Korean. The exception is teaching English Conversation, because the Korean teachers very obviously can't do it well enough themselves. The government is trying to limit South Korea's reliance on foreign ESL teachers though.
This goes for outsourcing too -- the UK government is happy to consider having foreign companies build nuclear power plants or railway lines in the UK, but the South Korean government would rather have everything in South Korea done by South Korean companies, even setting up a company to do it if necessary.
When Westerners open their labour markets to foreigners and foreign companies, what can they do if the foreigners do not reciprocate?
The worldwide median standard of living is a hell of endless hard labor and famine. It would be more egalitarian for outsourcing to continue until everyone is reduced to a level near that, but I'm still concerned about it, partly because nobody would have the luxury of accomplishing anything meaningful.
I think with the advent of the internet, the disparity in the world economy is being normalised. In India, just 6-7 years back, $200/month was a good salary where one could lead a a happy life. Nowayadays, $1000/mo is fairly manageable (still very low compared to world standards). Inflation is up, living standards is improving, costs have risen and so are the income expectations. So, this might not be surprising.
I wonder how much profit there is to create loops? Company outsources to India which outsources to the US which outsources back to India which outsources back to the US, etc. I guess they make it work by finding cheap labor in the US (compared to training Indians).
The title and premise of the article seem totally flawed.
The reason why Aegis has opted to hire locals within US is for their native American accent. The cost of vocal training of an average Indian employee is quite high. Given the attrition rate and gap in quality of delivered service, it makes sense for these companies to find out ways to sustain and meet standards. That's why cheap hire of people who "lack high school diplomas" makes sense in the US.
This does not in anyway suggest that India is now 'outsourcing' back to United States. That is likely to happen only after huge and reverse tilting between the two economies [Assuming China does not exist!]. IMO, this move on part of the company indicates only their incapacity to serve from India. In other words the article is just an ego-massage fluff piece.
Unless I misunderstood the article, all they're doing here is hiring locals to handle local customers. This is something everybody does everywhere, and is by no means "outsourcing". When we talk about US companies outsourcing call center work to India, it's virtually always referring to serving American customers with Indian call center employees, which is a completely different situation.
No. Cost of hiring in America was the only reason why outsourcing took shape. India was the largest population which had advantage of basic English education; and thus it was in a good position to serve such an emerging market at low cost.
Only now people have realized that English is different from Hinglish, Chinglish, Finglish, Singlish and cost-wise it is okay (economical and easier) to hire "barely educated" within the States than to train someone in Asia who would jerk the consumer experience quite often. I think both situations are completely different.
Typically -glish refers to a mash-up of English and another language, not English that sounds accented to Americans.
For example, Taglish is Tagalog with English mixed in (or vice versa) and you'd be hard-pressed to find any call center in the Philippines that relies on Taglish.
You say, "Cost of hiring in America was the only reason..." to outsource. Then you say, "Only now people have realized ... cost-wise it is ... (economical and easier) to hire ... within the States" in your first post you said, "The cost of vocal training of an average Indian employee is quite high."
So you are saying cost is the reason to outsource and because of cost that Aegis is hiring US workers to avoid paying for English training, which means Aegis is outsourcing English speakers to the U.S.
The U.S. outsourced call centers and India is outsourcing English speakers. Same thing. Indian companies (Aegis) are hiring Americans = outsourcing = American companies hiring Indians.
Aegis = Indian company providing support services to American OEMs. Therefore, outsourcing is still from America to India and not vice versa. Aegis hiring native Americans for the job is not the same thing as "India outsourcing to America" because native accent is not a requirement/demand of India. It is the demand of OEM consumers of America and thus it implies only that the American jobs have "stayed back" in Americas. There is absolutely no cross-border outsourcing happening at all, whatever be the consideration.
BTW, outsourcing isn't just about call centres. Hinglish may not be a hindrance. For example, the IT arm of the NYC-based hedge fund I used to work for now pays $40k USD per Indian employee (in Indian Rupees, of course, I just converted the number back to USD) or more, and gets top-notch developers to work for them. The same skills would cost $80k in the US, and probably > $100k in NYC (very conservative estimates).
Hinglish may not be English, but C++ is C++, algorithms are algorithms, intelligence is intelligence, but INR is not USD. Outsourcing is (quasi-)arbitrage!
Cost of hiring is an important part. But one more important part is ability of indians to manage mundane tasks large scale, which is not available easily.
I would change the statement to 'The US Visa laws are broken'. Empirically H1-B demand is tied to the demand for highly skilled people. There have been years when it was allotted via lottery and there were years when the quota was not filled up.
The companies using H1 already pay a high penalty in terms of the very high fees, which is non refundable even if the visa is rejected. It is a source of revenue to the US govt
