Translating Engineer
Vocabulary to a Worldview
Can mastering a language fundamentally alter an engineer's approach to problem-solving? Swati Devi's journey into Japanese culture presented this very challenge and opportunity. Her initial perception of learning Japanese was pragmatic: a necessary skill to navigate a new professional environment. However, the reality of Japanese corporate life quickly revealed a deeper immersion was required. All aspects of work, from emails to documents, were conducted in Japanese. This was a surprise, as she had expected the language preference to be limited to day-to-day conversations, not official life. This linguistic barrier became the first gateway to a genuine cultural and philosophical education.
Her immersion exceeded vocabulary acquisition. It unveiled a distinctive work philosophy centered on collective contribution and efficiency. Dalal learned that Japanese companies emphasize ensuring "everybody can give their best and contribute". This ethos meant problems were solved through multi-layered team efforts, involving managers, colleagues, engineers, technicians, and junior staff. Each person had a specific part to play, with no individual expected to carry the entire burden. This collective approach highlighted a critical principle she observed: if one person adopts a "laid back attitude," it "is actually determining the whole efficiency of the team". She likened this to the "rate-determining step" in science, where the slowest reaction governs the overall process.
This understanding instilled a powerful motivation within Swati Devi. She grasped that to "solve a problem to work efficiently", the "whole team needs to work on that piece". Her employer deliberately chose to hire a non-Japanese engineer, implying an expectation for a different contribution. To fulfill this expectation and avoid becoming the "weakest link in the team," she recognized the need to understand the language and culture deeply. This commitment transformed language learning from a formal chore into an organic part of her daily life. It "never came like, I'm giving some exam". Her priority was practical: to comprehend requirements and "give back the feedback or the contribution that is expected out of me".
Within two years, she was presenting and speaking entirely in Japanese, effectively becoming "one of them". Yet, she also understood her role was to introduce "aspects as well, which were different from Japanese culture". This deeply integrated yet distinctly impactful dual role revealed how linguistic and cultural immersion reshaped her engineering worldview. It taught her the profound power of collective responsibility and the direct link between individual commitment and team efficiency. The experience expanded her understanding of problem-solving beyond technical diagrams to encompass the intricate dynamics of human collaboration.
"Everybody is giving their best. This way it's easier and faster to solve a problem."
The Unwritten Code of
Collective Responsibility
Beyond the linguistic immersion, Swati Devi encountered a pervasive ethical framework governing Japanese collaboration. She observed problem-solving as a deeply integrated group function, where success stemmed from unified effort rather than individual brilliance. Different levels of personnel, from managers to junior technicians, each contributed their distinct expertise. This defied a singular point of failure, embracing the scientific principle that the overall reaction rate is determined by its slowest step. In this ecosystem, Devi understood that the slowest person becomes the weakest link of the team". This mandated a universal commitment, transforming individual tasks into collective responsibilities.
This collective ethos extended into the fabric of daily life, particularly evident in unwritten social contracts. Devi recalled a senior manager insisting on paying for her dinner. The explanation was not about direct repayment but a societal obligation: "whenever you come within Junior you make sure that you are paying for them". This revealed a system where individuals give without expectation of direct reciprocity. It is "a society or culture that they have built that everybody is doing for someone without expecting them to give you back the same thing". The intention is to perpetuate a cycle of support, ensuring the recipient extends similar consideration to others. This societal equilibrium, Devi noted, fostered a "peaceful" environment, where individuals did not solely "solve problems for themselves".
This pervasive cultural code deeply informed Devi's professional conduct. She recognized that the system's inherent efficiency depended on every member providing their "best". A lack of full involvement signaled misalignment with the work. Her conclusion was direct: if alignment was absent, it was preferable to "change the work and prefer something much more aligned". This uncompromising stance on commitment and alignment became a cornerstone of her evolving leadership philosophy.
Her position as a foreign engineer reinforced the practical application of this cultural learning. Deep linguistic and cultural understanding became paramount to avoid being a "weakest link" and to effectively contribute to the unique perspectives for which she was hired. It was not enough to merely comprehend because she needed to "convey my message, convey my work to my colleagues and the people". This commitment was driven by the recognition that her effort directly impacted the collective success.
The Japanese model thus provided Swati Devi with a framework for understanding human systems where individual dedication is organically woven into collective efficiency. It demonstrated that operational harmony stems from a widely accepted, implicitly understood code of mutual responsibility, where the pursuit of excellence is a shared endeavor, not a solitary one.
"It's kind of a society or culture that they have built that everybody is doing for someone without expecting them to give you back the same thing."
"If we know why we are doing it, even if one pathway is not working, we will try to figure out the alternatives to it, because what matters is actually to solve the problem, not sticking to a particular pathway."
Questioning Fundamentals
in Innovation
Swati Devi's immersion in Japanese corporate culture, while revealing the power of collective harmony, also exposed a philosophical tension: the limited scope for individual questioning within a system built on established alignment. She observed that "there was not a lot of questioning, because people kind of just accepted what the seniors had said". This reluctance stemmed from a perception that questioning could lead to "a little chaotic" or even "egoistic" outcomes. This cultural trait, deeply ingrained, contrasted sharply with the proactive inquiry essential for groundbreaking innovation.
However, the team Devi worked with operated with a broader perspective. Their engagement with global customers introduced a different dynamic, subtly challenging the traditional Japanese approach. Her Japanese colleagues, exposed to international interactions, actively encouraged her and other Indian hires to ask questions. They aimed for Japanese personnel to "become aware" and "accept that it's okay to ask questions". This environment provided Devi a crucial space to cultivate a more inquisitive approach, despite initial language barriers hindering her ability to articulate or receive comprehensive answers fully.
Upon returning to India, Swati Devi fully actualized this inquisitive mindset in her startup role. Here, the "first principle approach" became a foundational methodology. She ensured her team understood "why they are working" before simply focusing on the "how". This clarity, she believes, is the true motivator. Without understanding the fundamental purpose, work becomes a task, lacking the drive to innovate. Devi applies this rigorously as a manager, stating that if a problem's clarity is lacking, "it might not be with the person" or their skillset, but with the initial understanding of "why we are doing it".
In an innovation-driven environment, especially a startup environment where "not a lot of research has already happened," questioning preconceived notions is paramount. Devi emphasizes going to "the fundamentals, questioning it till we cannot further decode it". This involves "removing all the preconceived notions, removing all the biases" and focusing solely on "the first principles, on the fundamentals". This relentless pursuit of the underlying "why" enables teams to adapt pathways and take "hard decisions" when initial approaches fail. The objective is always "actually to solve the problem, not sticking to a particular pathway".
This culture of fundamental inquiry means decisions are made based on what makes sense for the future, rather than adherence to existing methods or individual biases. Devi ensures her team is "aligned on the clarity part of, and they are aligned on. Why, we are doing it". This prevents micromanagement and fosters a deep emotional connection to the mission. Her experience thus illustrates how a disciplined, first-principles approach, even when culturally challenging, becomes the engine of innovation, guiding teams through uncharted territories by continuously validating their core purpose.
Navigating Risks of Saturated Markets and Pioneering Frontiers
Swati’s career demonstrates a deliberate pivot from established technological landscapes to nascent, innovative frontiers. Her transition from Japan's saturated lithium-ion battery market to an Indian startup exploring new battery technologies was more than a strategic maneuver. It was propelled by an engineering curiosity and a desire for creative work transcending "repetitive, or incremental work". This move highlighted the challenges of competing in an established market, particularly against cost-effective manufacturing giants like China. Devi observed that entering that market as a beginner becomes exceptionally difficult once a country has perfected a technology, such as China, with lithium-ion batteries over two decades.
Her decision to join an Indian startup was rooted in a distinct approach to risk. Devi's philosophy, shaped by her father, embraces confronting challenges directly. She noted her father was "not scared of those situations" and would suggest, "let's face it, what will happen?". This cultivated a "risk-taking ability" within her that is not blind. Instead, it is a calculated process based on thorough questioning and clarity of purpose. Devi’s confidence stems from knowing "why I'm doing it". This approach allows her to pursue opportunities that "might seem very risk-taking from the outside".
This proactive stance contrasts sharply with stagnation. Devi found herself saturated with "incremental things" after six years in Japan. She recognized a need to "bring my creativity out". Her drive to "explore the other aspects" and pursue innovation aligns with a mindset that views inaction as a greater risk than calculated exploration. The shift to a startup, while a "big shift" from an MNC environment, promised "exponential growth" and the chance to contribute to Indian research and innovation.
In the startup environment, this "first principles approach" extended to understanding unit economics from the outset, even if not immediately communicated to the entire technical team. The goal was to solve technical challenges with an awareness of eventual market viability. Devi emphasizes that if a product is "not going to add value to the customers, or if it is not going to be that cost competitive in the market, then it will not enter". This realistic appraisal, combined with a willingness to change pathways and "take those hard decisions", is fundamental to navigating the uncertain landscape of innovation.
Her role as a manager in this new venture requires her to "be unbiased". While she connects passionately with the technical team, her decision-making at a higher level remains practical, focusing on economic and financial viability. This dual perspective ensures that innovative solutions are technically elegant and economically sensible. The objective is to solve problems, not to pursue a specific technical path for its own sake.
"I really wanted to explore the other aspects and be more innovative and more creative and not just do some repetitive, or incremental work."
Balancing Pragmatism and Potential of Indian Innovation
India possesses an undeniable intellectual capital, marked by "brilliant engineers" and "skilled professionals". Swati Devi points to the success of companies like Infosys, which "cracked it" and opened the doors for India to become an IT hub. This demonstrates the nation's capacity for innovation. However, Devi identifies key challenges within India's innovation ecosystem. She notes a "lack of distinguishing the strategies, the approaches, the priorities". This contrasts with countries like China, which has consistently driven forward in manufacturing over the last three decades. India, she believes, has "somehow lagged that long-term approach".
A critical missing piece, in Devi's assessment, is a long-term funding perspective. While "globally, there is much interest in the new techs, new innovative ideas", Indian investors, she observes, often focus on short-term returns. They prioritize "revenues next year, the expectations next year", rather than the patient investment required for innovative ideas to mature. This short-sightedness hinders the growth of cutting-edge research, which "takes time... to bring that money back".
Devi advocates for a strong focus on the circular economy as a solution to environmental and geopolitical challenges. She highlights how dependence on a single country for resources, like China's ban on rare earth elements used in EV magnets, can create global issues. Recycling products, once they are "being used globally," can remove this dependency. The circular economy, for her, is not an optional "last milestone" but a necessity. She notes the aluminum market, where "40% works on the secondary, I mean reused aluminium", as a successful example of economic and energy efficiency through recycling.
However, the implementation of circular economy principles in India faces systemic hurdles. Devi acknowledges that recycling rates are low, estimating around 15% for recyclable material. The primary issue is a lack of awareness and user-friendly collection methods. People "don't know what to do with that". Her observations from Japan showed a highly organized system with clear waste segregation, resale stores, and proper discard protocols, enforced by penalties. In India, incentivizing individuals, perhaps with "money, some kind of money, some kind of incentives to them" for scrap, could be a more effective driver. Devi believes "people love money, they love money when they get it for the scrap, so they will do it". This suggests a need for tailored, culturally aware approaches to the circular economy in India.
Ultimately, Swati Devi champions a proactive, fundamentally driven approach for India's technological and environmental future. It is about fostering an environment where talented individuals can "work on something they are passionate about", not just for money. The goal is to solve "the problem that the world is facing", adapting technology pathways as needed. This requires a balance of long-term vision, strategic prioritization, and culturally resonant implementation strategies to unlock India's full potential as a global innovation leader in sustainability.
"It's not like India doesn't have the brain. We have the brain."
What I learned from Swati Devi
-
Cultural immersion can fundamentally reshape an engineer's thinking, fostering a deeper understanding of collective contribution and problem-solving.
-
True team efficiency hinges on universal commitment, as even the "slowest person becomes the weakest link".
-
Adopting a "first principles approach" and rigorously questioning "why" is crucial for innovation, especially in uncharted technical territories.
-
Navigating technological markets requires calculated risk-taking, prioritizing creative, impactful work over merely incremental improvements.
-
Long-term strategic funding and a focus on the circular economy are critical to unlocking the full potential of India's innovation ecosystem.
Open Questions
-
Question 1: Swati Devi noted that in Japan, questioning authority was limited due to concerns about chaos or ego. How can diverse organizations foster a culture of open inquiry and "first principles thinking" without disrupting necessary operational hierarchy?
-
Question 2: Considering Swati Devi's insight that incentivizing individuals for recycling might work better in India than penalties, what specific, scalable incentive models could effectively transform India's low recycling rates?
Comprehension Challenge: Swati Devi
Philosophy
Swati Devi’s journey exemplifies how a deep cultural understanding and a "first principles" approach can drive innovation, particularly when navigating the risks of new frontiers. She consciously chose to challenge established norms and embrace "calculated risks" rooted in clarity of purpose. This challenge tests the conviction required to pursue a truly innovative path, especially when existing solutions offer a seemingly safer, albeit less impactful, alternative.
The Scenario
Imagine 'Priya,' a brilliant food scientist leading R&D for a major Indian FMCG company. Her team has perfected a new method to extract plant-based protein from a standard agricultural waste product, significantly reducing environmental impact and offering superior nutritional value compared to current market leaders. The process is technically elegant and aligns perfectly with the company's sustainability goals.
However, the existing market for plant-based proteins is dominated by two well-established, highly cost-efficient technologies (soy and pea protein), primarily sourced from China. These traditional proteins are cheaper to produce and integrate into existing supply chains. Priya’s new protein, while innovative and more sustainable, would initially be 20% more expensive to manufacture and would require the company to build an entirely new supply chain for the agricultural waste, a complex undertaking in India’s diverse rural landscape.
The company's board presents Priya with two options:
Option A (The "Saturated Market" Path): Optimize her team's research to develop a slightly improved, cheaper version of the existing pea protein, leveraging established supply chains and manufacturing. This low-risk path promises immediate market acceptance due to cost competitiveness and ensures incremental profit growth. It aligns with investor demands for short-term returns.
Option B (The "Pioneering Frontier" Path): Push for fully developing and commercializing her innovative, agricultural waste-derived protein. This path is high-risk, requires substantial upfront investment in new infrastructure and supply chains, and will not be immediately cost-competitive. However, it offers potential for long-term market disruption, aligns deeply with the company's stated sustainability mission, and could establish a new, resilient supply chain within India.
The Task
What is Priya's imperative as a leader, drawing on Swati Devi’s philosophy of "first principles" and navigating risk? Should she choose the commercially safe, incremental path (Option A), or the high-risk, high-reward innovative path that aligns with deeper purpose (Option B)? Develop a strategy that allows Priya to justify her final choice to her board, prioritizing long-term vision over immediate market pressures. How does a leader balance economic viability and market realities with true innovation and environmental impact?