Culture Head at Razorpay on Chetty Arun

Leaders need to figure out their AI stack

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Sun, 03 May 2026 05:30:00 +0000

Leaders who think AI is just another tool they can plug into existing workflows are getting this wrong. This is not a software upgrade. It is a workflow redesign moment.

Every function head now has to figure out their AI stack. They also have to figure out what more becomes possible once that stack exists.

Earlier, a leader’s operating stack was a set of tools their team used to get work done. LinkedIn. ATS. CRM. Figma. Email. Calendar. Docs. Now the stack is shifting from tools people use to agents that do parts of the work.

That changes the job of leadership. Leadership has always been about setting direction, building teams, and creating the conditions for good execution. Now it also requires redesigning how the function works when agents can take over chunks of execution, and rethinking the scope of what the team can actually do.

If you do not do that redesign yourself, your team will keep using AI as a thin layer on top of an old system. You will get marginal gains, not a new operating model. You will also miss the chance to expand the ambition of the function itself.

Take talent acquisition.

Earlier, the workflow looked roughly like this: scout LinkedIn, identify candidates, reach out, scan resumes, do an initial screening call, coordinate interviews, and move people through the pipeline. The operating stack was LinkedIn, an ATS, phone calls, email, and Google Calendar.

Now imagine that same workflow rebuilt for an agentic world. One agent scouts LinkedIn against the role brief. One agent scans resumes and ranks candidates based on the traits the team actually cares about. One agent runs the first round to collect structured signals. One agent coordinates calendars with interviewers.

The TA lead is no longer just managing recruiters using tools. The TA lead has to design the system of agents, handoffs, review points, and escalation rules that make hiring work.

That is the new stack.

And this does not stop with hiring.

Take sales.

A sales leader cannot treat AI as a note taker added to the current process and call it transformation. They have to ask bigger questions.

Which parts of prospecting should agents do? Can an agent research accounts, generate first-pass outreach, update the CRM, prepare call briefs, summarize objections, and suggest follow-ups? Where should a rep step in?

What signals need human judgment? What should be fully automated, and what should never be?

The new sales stack is not just Salesforce plus a few AI copilots. It is a set of agentic workflows across prospecting, qualification, follow-up, forecasting, and pipeline hygiene. That stack needs an owner. That owner is the sales leader.

And once that stack is working, the question changes from how to save rep time to how much more pipeline the team can cover, how much better prepared every conversation can be, and how much tighter execution can become.

Take design.

A design head also cannot think in terms of just adding one more AI tool to Figma. The real question is how the workflow changes.

Can agents turn product requirements into rough flows? Can they generate first-pass explorations for multiple directions? Can they evaluate consistency against an existing design system? Can they help turn user research into recurring patterns and insights? Can they help designers move faster from mockups into code that gets pushed directly into product?

If so, then the design leader has to decide where human taste, product sense, and judgment matter most. The job becomes designing a workflow where agents expand the team’s range without flattening the quality of thinking.

This is bigger than adding another tool to the design stack. It is about rethinking how design work gets done, and how much more the team can ship.

It is also a scope question. Once designers can move from idea to shipped product faster, the team can take on more experiments, iterate more aggressively, and operate closer to the product surface than before.

This is why I think every function head needs to figure out their AI stack now. Not later. Not after the market settles. Not once some central innovation team publishes a playbook.

Right now.

Because the people who redesign workflows early will learn faster what humans should own, what agents should own, and where the real leverage sits. They will also learn what new output, speed, and range become possible once the work is rebuilt around that stack.

Everyone else will keep layering AI onto legacy processes and wondering why the gains feel underwhelming.

The uncomfortable truth is this: AI is not just changing execution. It is changing management. Leaders now have to build the new operating stack for their teams.

If you lead a function, that is your job.

You do not need a perfect answer on day one. But you do need to start mapping your workflows, breaking them into steps, identifying which steps can be agentic, deciding what the new stack should look like, and asking what your team could do once those constraints start to fall away.

Because in this phase, the winners will not just be teams with access to AI tools. They will be teams whose leaders figured out how work itself needs to change, and what new scale of work becomes possible because of it.

Hope you enjoyed the read! If you have feedback or a different perspective, I’d love to know. Catch me on Twitter or mail me at me@chettyarun.com Thanks!

The thoughts are Chetty Arun’s, but he used Hoid - his blog writing agent - to shape and publish this post.

How I set up Sazed to turn journaling into a guided conversation

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000

I have journaled for a long time.

For years, I used DayOne. It did its job well: it gave me a place to write things down and maintain a record of my days. But over time I realized that I was mostly logging events, not really understanding them.

That was the limitation.

I could write what happened during the day, what meetings I had, whether I went to the gym, whether I felt distracted, or whether something felt off. But if there was something heavier sitting underneath all that, I usually did not unpack it. I would write a line like “something was on my mind” and move on.

So the journal became an archive, not a tool for reflection.

The problems I had with normal journaling

The first problem was that the blank page did not help me think.

DayOne is intentionally minimal, and that works if you already know what you want to say. But when your thoughts are fuzzy, or when you are avoiding a feeling without realizing it, the blank page does not push back. It accepts whatever you give it.

The second problem was that I found it easier to describe events than emotions.

I could write that I had a strange day, that I was not focused, or that something was bothering me. But actually naming what I was feeling, and why, took more effort. Most of the time, I stopped before getting there.

This is a screenshot from my Day One entry.

The third problem was insight.

I used to revisit old entries from one year ago, two years ago, sometimes even older. That was useful for memory, but not for understanding patterns. I could see what happened on a day. I could not easily see recurring emotional themes, unresolved loops, or connections between entries.

I did try manual tagging with things like #happy, #sad, and #anxious. That helped a little, but it was still manual and inconsistent. It also did nothing to improve the quality of reflection while I was actually journaling.

What I wanted instead

I wanted journaling to feel more like a guided conversation.

Not advice. Not an AI trying to fix my life. Not a chatbot pretending to be wise.

I wanted something that could notice when I was being vague, ask a better question, and help me go one level deeper. As an executive coach, this idea felt obvious to me. Good coaching is often about questions, not answers. So I started wondering what would happen if my OpenClaw setup could bring that same style into journaling.

That is how Sazed took shape.

Why Sazed?

The name comes from the Cosmere.

Sazed is one of those characters who feels calm, thoughtful, and deeply oriented toward knowledge, memory, and meaning. That felt like the right personality for a journaling system. I did not want an agent that sounded clever or intrusive. I wanted one that could hold context, stay measured, and ask good questions.

That is the role Sazed plays.

How I set up journaling with OpenClaw

Sazed is one of my OpenClaw agents, and his role is very narrow by design.

He behaves like a professional life coach in the way he asks questions, but he does not give advice. He does not jump to solutions. He only asks probing follow-up questions and logs what I am thinking and feeling.

That boundary matters.

A lot of AI products try to be useful by becoming prescriptive too early. I did not want that here. In journaling, I have found that advice is often less useful than better reflection. So I designed Sazed to stay in question mode.

The workflow is simple. I start journaling in natural language. Sazed reads what I write, notices where I am broad, incomplete, or emotionally vague, and then asks the next question.

If I write something like, “I had something going on in my mind,” he does not accept that as a complete thought. He might ask, “What specifically was occupying your mind during the workout, and what feels most important about that right now?”

If I then answer, “Maybe work was on my mind,” he can probe further with, “What about work feels most present or unresolved for you right now?”

That turns journaling from a monologue into a guided conversation.

The graph layer with Kuzu

The second important part of the setup is memory.

Sazed automatically tags journals and feelings, so I am no longer doing that manually. Underneath that, I use Kuzu as the graph database. This allows the system to maintain relationships between entries, emotions, people, topics, and recurring themes across time.

That changes the shape of the journal completely.

Instead of everything being stored as isolated dated notes, the entries become connected. I can revisit my journaling not just by day, but through the things that matter: feelings I mentioned repeatedly, people who show up often, common nouns, recurring topics, and links between moments that would otherwise stay buried.

There is also a private page that lets me browse this more easily. The important point is not the access layer itself. The real value is that I can move through my journal using connections instead of only chronology.

That is where the graph structure becomes useful.

Examples of how the conversation changes

Here is the kind of difference I mean.

In my old journaling flow, I might write a factual entry about my day and end it with a vague line like “something was on my mind.” That would be the end of it. The journal would contain the sentence, but it would not help me unpack it.

With Sazed, that same moment becomes the beginning of the reflection, not the end.

He responds with a question like: “What specifically was occupying your mind during the workout, and what feels most important about that right now?”

If I respond with: “Maybe work was on my mind,” the next question becomes: “What about work feels most present or unresolved for you right now?”

That sequence is simple, but it does something important. It forces me to move from a vague emotional signal to an identifiable concern.

Another example came from a journal exchange about visiting the BITS design school. I wrote that I had a really good day there, that it made me feel like going back to college, and that I enjoyed interacting with the students.

A blank journal could have stopped there.

Sazed asked: “What about being there made you want to go back to college?”

I answered that the campus environment brought back memories of a time when I felt responsibility-free and stress-free.

Then came the next question: “What do you miss most about that lighter version of life?”

I responded that it felt like I had much more time back then, and that now I often feel like I am just running from one thing to another.

The next question was: “What is taking most of your time and energy right now?”

Sazed never speaks directly. He sends it to Kaladin (my main agent) and Kaladin sends it back to me. That is why you see Kaladin’s name in the chat.

That is the difference in one sequence.

The journal entry starts with nostalgia about a campus visit, but the guided conversation surfaces something more useful underneath it: time scarcity, pressure, and the feeling of constant motion. That is much more valuable to revisit later than a simple record that I had a nice day.

Why this works better for me

I still think blank-canvas journaling works for many people. It worked for me too, up to a point.

But I wanted something more structured without becoming rigid. I wanted journaling to stay conversational and natural while becoming more useful for reflection and retrieval. OpenClaw gave me the right primitives to design exactly that kind of system, and Kuzu gave me a way to preserve relationships between thoughts over time.

So now my journal is not just a daily log.

It is a guided conversation with memory.

That is the real upgrade.

Hope you enjoyed the read! If you have feedback or a different perspective, I’d love to know. Catch me on Twitter or mail me at me@chettyarun.com Thanks!

The thoughts are Chetty Arun’s, but he used Hoid , his blog writing agent, to shape and publish this post.

Introducing Hoid

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Sun, 05 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000

I have a lot of thoughts. That has never been the problem. The problem is that I do not write them down. Call it laziness, call it procrastination, call it whatever you want. For a long time, most of my writing ended in my head.

Now AI gives me a way around that. So I built myself a writing agent named Hoid. The point was not to outsource thinking, and definitely not to generate generic blog posts. The point was much simpler: I wanted help turning thoughts I already had into writing that actually gets finished.

Why Hoid?

I love the Cosmere, Brandon Sanderson’s shared universe of epic fantasy books. He has written a bazillion books at this point, and I have spent an unreasonable amount of time inside those worlds. Out of all of them, I am especially a fan of The Stormlight Archive.

Hoid is one of the most fascinating characters in that universe. He is sharp, unpredictable, and above all, a great storyteller. That is what made the name feel right to me. I wanted a writing agent that could help me hold onto the thread of an idea and tell it better.

If you have never come across Hoid before, this Coppermind article on Hoid is a good place to start. You do not need to know the Cosmere to understand what I am doing here, but if you do, the name probably tells you exactly the kind of energy I wanted from this agent.

What Hoid actually does

Hoid is one of my OpenClaw agents. His job is not to think for me, and it is not that I throw him a random half-thought and he magically writes the whole article. Usually I already have the point, the rough flow, and what I want to say. What Hoid helps with is the writing itself.

He helps me shape the draft faster, write while I am on the move, and push articles live straight from WhatsApp. That means I can be on my commute, have a clear idea I want to get out, work through it with Hoid, tighten the draft, and get it published without waiting until I am back at a laptop. That convenience matters more than I expected.

The real value for me is not replacement. It is momentum. I do not need AI to have opinions for me. I need help turning thoughts I already have into posts that actually get written and shipped. That is what Hoid does.

Going forward, whenever Hoid helps publish an article, I will clearly say so at the end. I like the idea that the writing process stays transparent. The thoughts are still mine, but now there is a system around me that makes it much easier to follow through.

Hope you enjoyed the read! If you have feedback or a different perspective, I’d love to know. Catch me on Twitter or mail me at me@chettyarun.com Thanks!

The thoughts are Chetty Arun’s, but he used Hoid - his blog writing agent - to shape and publish this post.

Pulse checks at Razorpay - Part 1

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Sometime last year, in February 2024, I launched monthly mood check-in surveys at Razorpay called RazorPulse. This is a 2 part series on the Why, What, and How of RazorPulse.

Historically, Razorpay has always done a bi-annual eNPS survey. This was an elaborate survey with over 50 questions which covered everything from the classic NPS question to RnR, growth opportunities, manager feedback (mNPS), learning & development opportunities, office facilities, employee benefits, compensation benefits, etc. This was (and still is) called Voice of Razors (VoR).

Voice of Razors was super elaborate. We could identify hotspots in the organization about a certain topic. And, we could dive deeper into these hotspots by doing focus group discussions. And then work with leaders and HR partners in those hotspots to figure out solutions to specific problem statements. For example, if R&R (rewards & recognition) was scoring low in a sales team, we’d do focus group discussions and find out what exactly in R&R was an issue and maybe put up monthly recognition days as a solution.

Scores from VoR dictated the yearly People Ops strategy planning. Scores like eNPS, mNPS, L&D scores, etc., were L0 OKRs. The data from VoR was used as benchmarks in annual planning. If mNPS was low, we focused on manager development programs. If R&R was low, we focused on central and local R&R initiatives.

While this was good, a bi-annual survey was too late to figure out how the org was doing. There was no immediate way to figure out a monthly trend of how Razors (employees at Razorpay) were feeling at work. And increasing the frequency of VoR wasn’t a viable option as that’s a large survey with over 50 questions. We wanted something quick. Something that employees can fill in without feeling the “Survey Fatigue.” Something that quickly checks in with them and gives leadership a good enough picture of how the employees’ mood is. That’s how RazorPulse was born.

It’s a simple 3-question survey that’s sent in the second week of every month. It’s non-anonymous. It’s non-mandatory. And, it’s quick.

It has just 3 questions:

How are you feeling at work this month? (Pick one from Very Good, Good, Neutral, Bad, and Very Bad)
What made you feel that way? (Open text field)
A contextual question for that month (usually a Likert scale question)

It’s non-anonymous by design. As this was a monthly check-in, we realised we would get a lot of tactical actionable feedback. Something like, “I feel anxious due to this workload,” or, “With a few personal issues, I don’t feel good this month.” In such cases, we wanted immediate attention & action from leaders and HR partners. So, it was made non-anonymous on purpose and was transparently communicated to the whole org that it was non-anonymous for this reason.

It’s non-mandatory. We strongly feel that such surveys should be non-mandatory. Once employees trust the system, they willingly participate in such surveys. It’s a positive feedback loop: Employees share their feedback openly, their feedback is acted on promptly, employees see the changes happening, employees trust the system, and thereby employees share their feedback openly. Instead of mandating it, we marketed it well. We explained to folks the why behind this new survey and we let the actions speak for themselves.

It’s designed to be a quick survey. Out of the 3 questions, only the first (the mood question) is mandatory. The remaining 2 are optional. The philosophy I went with was: Employees should be able to fill this survey while they’re on their way to the cafeteria for lunch. It shouldn’t take any more time than that.

The contextual question changed every month. If we did an R&R activity in the org, the question could be a Likert scale regarding the R&R activity. If we were pushing for AI adoption in the org, the third question changed to asking about AI tool facilities.

Every month, close to 1000 employees (1/3rd of Razorpay) fill the survey. An overall mood score for Razorpay is calculated based on the first question. A team wise mood score (Engineering, Product, Design, Sales, etc., mood scores are calculated and compared to the overall org score). A leaderwise split is made and only the CXOs and business unit heads get access to the exact verbatim shared by employees in the 2nd question. Leaders are then tasked with acting on immediate critical and low-hanging concerns shared by employees.

This survey:

Gave leaders a quick health check on how their teams are feeling at work
Gave the HR team and leaders a sense of how People Strategy projects are showing results from the 3rd (contextual) question
Gave leaders action items and not just a quantitative score of eNPS

Leaders at Razorpay take up immediate actions based on what’s said in the survey. I’ve seen employees sharing their quick wins and how they’re feeling elated at work. I’ve seen CXOs taking up skip level meetings with employees multiple levels below them and helping them out because they’ve shared feedback in the pulse survey. Overall, it’s become a forum where employees share feedback without hesitation (in spite of it being a non-anonymous survey) and leaders taking swift action.

The survey comes as a ping on Slack and on Email. It hardly takes 2 minutes to answer. It was very simple to set it up. And, it has shown tremendous results at Razorpay.

In part 2, I’ll share how results from the survey are analysed.

Hope you enjoyed the read! If you have feedback or a different perspective, I’d love to know. Catch me on Twitter or mail me at me@chettyarun.com Thanks!

Hands-on Leadership

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Sat, 04 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0000

At a high level, leaders at startups focus on inspiring, empowering, and enabling people on-ground. Which basically means, they set ambitious targets, give directions, and enable their teams to achieve these targets. In short, they are the strategists. But, I strongly feel that leaders shouldn’t stick to just strategy. They should be hands-on too.

If you’re a CTO, your team should see a great tech leader in you. And, your team should also see you as a fellow engineer. They should see you setting up a solid tech strategy and also see you on the floor in an API design debate once in a while.

So, micromanage the team then?

Nope. Not at all. I don’t want leaders breathing down on everyone’s neck or fiddling with every tiny detail. A leader should navigate this fine line between hands-on involvement and micromanagement.

Leaders should be present on the floor too and lead by example. That doesn’t mean micromanage the team. As a marketing leader for example, don’t just set the next best marketing strategy. Help the team brainstorm on the next GTM plan. Write content once in a while. Etc.

And the same logic applies to founders too. Just because a founder has hired a product leader today doesn’t mean they stay aloof from product development starting tomorrow. As someone on the ground, I’d love to see the founders’ comments on my PRDs, my raw design files, and my team’s endless Slack thread debates.

In conclusion, if you’re a leader at an org: Inspire your team. Empower your team. Enable your team. Direct your team. And most importantly, be hands-on once in a while and lead by an example.

Also, the landscape is forever changing. It a no-brainer for leaders to get into the trenches once in a while to stay relevant and to stay in-sync with their teams.

Hope you enjoyed the read! If you have feedback or a different perspective, I’d love to know. Catch me on Twitter or mail me at me@chettyarun.com Thanks!

Evaluating leaders at a startup

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Are performance reviews enough to assess leaders at a startup?

Startups frequently assess/evaluate employees during performance reviews. In some startups they happen every quarter. In some, twice a year. And in some, once a year. Irrespective of the frequency, they’re often revolve around OKRs and competencies.

OKRs measure what an employee has achieved
Functional competencies guage an employee’s expertise in their domain
Behavioural competencies assess how an employee behaves

But, should this be same for leaders too? If the performance review for a Marketing Head says that they’ve organised efficient marketing campaigns all throughout the year, does that make them a great marketing leader? Is that enough? Is that enough for the org to call them a great leader? Is that enough for the leader to take feedback and grow?

I don’t think so. I don’t think leaders should be evaluated just on performance reviews alone.

Before going further and answering this, let us understand leaders first.

How are leaders different?

An org is successful if they do the right things the right way. Leaders are the ones who help decide what is the right thing and which is the right way. Leaders help set up a strong vision. Leaders help teams figure out the right approach to reach that vision.

Leaders help define, promote, and govern the right thing to do and the right way to do it

Simply put, leaders are the conduits of organisational growth. They act as catalysts for organisational evolution. They define the organisational culture. They serve as role models for their teams and the entire organisation. Teams look up to them for guidance, mentorship, and assurance when things go South.

And, for a role that’s this important, we can’t just be banking on performance reviews alone to assess leaders. And, when I say assessment, it isn’t just to judge how a leader performed in the last 6 months. It is to also give the right feedback to leaders so that they grow. And when they grow, their team grows. And, the entire org grows.

Note that when I say leaders, I don’t just mean a higher designation. I mean anyone at an org who has a lot of leverage.

So, how should leaders be assessed?

Leaders should be assessed on the same parameters. OKRs, functional competencies, and behavioiural competencies. But, not just during performance appraisals. And, there are a lot of further nuances to these three parameters that need to be considered. Let’s look at these two factors in detail:

Firstly, the nuances: The weightage of the three attributes should be different for leaders during performance reviews. For a leader, highest weightage should be given to behavioural competencies. Which are nothing but the culture values of the org. Second highest goes to OKRs and lastly the funcational competencies.

As a leader, you aren’t just working on your OKRs. You’re also responsible for enabling your team to work on their set of OKRs. As a leader, you aren’t just living the culture values of the org. You’re also enabling your team to live these culture values. As a leader, you’re responsible for hiring, engaging, growing, and retaining the best talent. You should be evaluated on that too.

Your assessment shouldn’t just include your usual product & business OKRs. Your assessment should also have people based OKRs. Like, how culturally aligned is your team? How diverse is your team? How is the attrition in your team? How’s your team growing? How many folks are actively growing, getting promoted, picking new skills, etc.? All of these should also be evaluated.

Secondly, the frequency: Assessment shouldn’t just be during performance reviews. There should be a continuous feedback that should flow to the leaders. Focus on factors like eNPS (employer NPS) and mNPS (manager NPS) scores too throughout the year (via frequent surveys). Figure out a score for the behavioural competencies - How well a leader is living the culture values and how well are they enabling their team to live the culture values. Calculate these scores via the surveys often. The HR partners should do frequent focus group discussions with the teams and take subjective feedback. All of this, should be used to assess the leader.

In conclusion, assessing leaders requires a special approach that goes beyond the traditional practices. As said, leaders are the driving force behind an org’s growth. An org should take the right calls when it comes to anything related to leadership.

Hope you enjoyed the read! If you have feedback or a different perspective, I’d love to know. Catch me on Twitter or mail me at me@chettyarun.com Thanks!

Talk about your work, often

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Mon, 14 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0000

My executive coach once drew these shapes on a board and said I have to be that third square. Before I could put up a puzzled look, he went on to explain something that I now share often with people:

Do more. Talk less

The first triangle represents people who work on a lot of great things but often don’t talk much about it (or talk very little about it). You’ll find a lot of folks in your organisation like this. A lot of great designers, engineers, business folks, etc., who do absolutely amazing work. But, you rarely see them talk about their work. One possible reason is the hesitation of sharing their work. Talking about your work feels like you’re “Boasting”.

If you’re someone like this, start somewhere small. Talk about your work. Blog it, tweet about it, or share interesting tidbits to your colleauges at work. Start somewhere. Let the world know how amazing you are and what amazing work you do.

Do less. Talk more

The second triangle represents people who talk a lot about their work but often aren’t the ones who are great at it. You might’ve faced people (especially in interviews) who happen to have a great online presence. But, after a conversation or after working with them, you realise they’re not that great after all.

If you are someone like this, you have a lot of work to do on yourself. Boast a little less. Or, don’t boast if you don’t know. Work with a mentor/coach and see what you can fix in your approach.

The balance

The third shape, the holy square, is where you should be. You do great work, and you talk about it. You tell the world about your good work, often. That’s the balance you have to maintain. If you fall in either of the two triangles, try reaching this ideal shape.

I wouldn’t say I am there at the square yet. I am a little closer to it than I was a few years ago for sure though. I was heading the design team earlier at Razorpay. And, I was interested in the Indian FinTech domain. So, I often asked myself, “If someone were to startup in the FinTech space, would my name come in their ‘Top 10 FinTech designers to hire in India’ list?” This question helped me get closer to being that square.

Try asking a similar question for your role and your domain. It might help you become a square 🙃

Hope you enjoyed the read! If you have feedback or a different perspective, I’d love to know. Catch me on Twitter or mail me at me@chettyarun.com Thanks!

Your first designer

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Tue, 01 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Your first designer should have a lot of qualities. But most importantly, they must believe in your startup’s vision right from day 0. You don’t want a designer who’s joining you only for building up their portfolio. You’ll find a lot of designers who are transactional. And, a lot of designers whose primary focus stops at, “I am here at an early stage startup to build a kickass portfolio for myself.”

There’s nothing wrong in that mentality. Designers (and everyone out there) should be selfish. But, that’s not a mentality that’ll work at early stage startups. That’s not a mentality that’ll fit well for founders who want to setup a great design function at their startups and see great design in their products.

As founders, you need designers who fundamentally believe in your vision.

For example, if your vision as an ed-tech startup is to coach 10 Million students, your first designer should believe and internalise that vision. One of their big reasons to join your startup should be that they also want to see their designs help coach 10 Million students.

Once they internalise this vision, they will primarily focus on that. They’ll not just chase the perfect design processes, extensive 6 month long user research sessions, a meticulously crafted design system on day 1, etc., for their shiny portfolios. They’ll focus solely on hustling to build things that’ll coach 10 Million students out there.

And, I strongly think this isn’t just for your first designer. Your first hire at every function should have this quality. Your HR, your PM, your Ops specialist, your Sales executive, and every first employee should have this quality. Simply put, your “Firsts” should be different. They should fundamentally believe in your vision.

I am over simplifying things here, but you get the drift.

If you’re an early stage founder and are looking for your first designer, I’d love to help you with that and in setting up your design function. Hit me up at me@chettyarun.com

✌🏻 Peace out!

Hope you enjoyed the read! If you have feedback or a different perspective, I’d love to know. Catch me on Twitter or mail me at me@chettyarun.com Thanks!

Asset and liability model

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Sun, 30 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0000

I was having a conversation with one of the leaders who heads a team of over 80 sales folks. Over the last 5 years he’s set up multiple sales teams and has grown as one of the exceptional leaders at Razorpay He told me about his model of coaching managers in the team which I found very interesting: The Asset and Liability model

As a leader, he’s required to solve complex problems by setting up efficient teams. And, these teams require middle managers (who themselves will grow into leaders very soon handling multiple areas and multiple middle managers). These middle managers are a tricky bunch. They are responsible for one big area (say, handling sales for enterprise clients) and they have around 5-6 sales folks reporting into them. They don’t just own the sales targets for their areas but also the crucial aspect of growing the 5-6 sales folks reporting into them.

So, for this leader in context, it’s absolutely important to find the right middle managers for his team and coach them. That’s where he uses his Asset and Liability model of coaching.

Every time a new manager joins his team, he openly shares with them that he’ll work with them over the next 6 months, coaching them as an asset to his team. After 6 months, there should be just 2 scenarios:

The new manager becomes an asset to the team. Thereby making the sales head a liability to the team (there’s nothing much extra that the sales head can add to this sub-team. So, a liability). This is the ideal situation. The sales head sets up a team, helps laying the foundation, makes the manager an asset, and moves on
The new manager fails to become an asset to the team. Thereby becoming a liability. In this situation, the manager is let go

While this is an oversimplificaiton, this model works well for leaders who manage multiple sub-teams with managers reporting into them. A leader is only successful when they’re not pulled into the day-to-day dealings of their sub-teams. Which requires strong managers heading the sub-teams. A big part of a leader’s role is to hire and train such managers. Failing to do so results in the leader getting pulled into activities which shouldn’t require their attention.

Hope you enjoyed the read! If you have feedback or a different perspective, I’d love to know. Catch me on Twitter or mail me at me@chettyarun.com Thanks!

Hackathons for business teams

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Sat, 15 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Hackathons are always marketed towards tech folks (Tech, Product, Design, etc.). Basically, the folks who can “Build” stuff. And then, there are B-Plan competitions. Which are primarily marketed towards people who can put up a business plan. This is something that I’ve observed across the startup industry.

Rarely I’ve seen an org which does both in one go. At the core of it, both are programs/events which are conducted to encourage employees to innovate, go out of their comfort zones, challenge the status quo, yada yada yada.

But, why restrict participation in these events? Why have a hackathon focussed towards people who can “Build” (read it as “Code”) and why have a B-Plan competition separately for folks who fit the MBA stereotype? Why not have one focussed session where everyone gets a chance to do something innovative?

Have one event where anyone can innovate. Anyone can collaborate and come up with something. Let engineers team up with marketing folks and put up a business proposal. Let business folks partner with designers and design prototypes.

Innovation can happen in any form. Restricting participation on the basis of employee function is a blocker IMO. And, we challenged this status quo at Razorpay in our annual org-wide hackathon in 2023 July. While I tweeted a summary of it here , I want to highlight a few stuff to keep in mind for hackathon organising committees:

Have two tracks. One where teams present a working demo and the other where teams present a business proposal. Don’t just have one track where all the participation is judged under one roof. These two tracks have fundamentally different delivereables. One’s delivering working code while the other is delivering a business proposal document. You can’t compare apples to oranges. If your judging criteria compares a business proposal with a working code, there’s a high chance the working code team will win (because code is ready and a business proposal is just, well, a proposal)
Have equal prizes for both the tracks. If you allocate a higher prize for one of these tracks, you’re by default penalising employees for not having certain skills (If you have a higher prize for a code ready hack, you’re telling employees that they’re not good if they can’t code. Don’t celebrate one function over the other)
Clearly communicate that employees’ function has nothing to do with the track they’d want to select. Let engineers select the business proposal track. Let business folks select the working demo track. Be surprised with results when you do this. We were surprised to see HRs and Customer Support folks coding a working demo. We were stoked to see a bunch of engineers and designers putting up a fully researched business proposal

While I can go into a lot of detail and turn this article into a, “How to organise a hackathon?”, I’d want to stop here with these basic tips. Feel free to ping me on Twitter to discuss this further.

Hackathons should be events where the entire organisation takes time to go out of their usual daily routine and innovate. An employee’s function shouldn’t stop them from innovating. Peace out!

Note: I am refering to internal hackathons when I say, “Hackathons.”

Hope you enjoyed the read! If you have feedback or a different perspective, I’d love to know. Catch me on Twitter or mail me at me@chettyarun.com Thanks!

When to promote someone

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Mon, 29 May 2023 00:00:00 +0000

You’re doing pretty good at your current role. You exceed all expectations at your current role. We are promoting you!

Do you relate to this statement? Did this ever happen to you? Do you see something wrong in this logic of promotions? I do.

We’ve all seen it happen. Someone gets promoted solely because they excel in their current role. While organizations often consider various factors when deciding on promotions, the core argument usually revolves around an individual’s outstanding performance and the belief that they will thrive in the next role. But is this really a foolproof strategy? I beg to differ.

Being exceptional in one role doesn’t guarantee success in the next. Just because someone excels as an Associate doesn’t mean they’ll meet the expectations of a Senior Associate right away. They may not tick all the boxes required for the new role just yet.

There’s a management concept on this called the “Peter Principle” which says that people get promoted to a new role because they performed well at their current role. If they prove competent in the new role, they’ll be promoted again. This cycle continues until they reach a position where their skills no longer match the requirements, resulting in a lack of future promotions. It’s an inevitable outcome according to the Peter Principle.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen this flawed logic applied to many people managers as well. Great individual contributors often get promoted to managerial positions because of their exceptional performance. But being a top-notch individual contributor doesn’t automatically make someone a great people manager. In fact, it can lead to two negative consequences:

An exceptional performer becomes a sub-par or even worse performer as a not-so-good people manager.
The employees who now report to this new manager gradually become frustrated and may even leave the company.

Neither of these outcomes benefits the person being promoted, the leaders, nor the organization as a whole. So, what’s the solution? When should promotions actually happen?

When do you promote people then?

Well, I believe promotions should only occur when an individual can confidently be rated as “Meets Expectations” for their next level. Otherwise, we’re setting them up for failure. For example, an Associate should only become a Senior Associate if their manager can genuinely rate them as “Meets Expectations” or higher for the Senior Associate role. It’s not enough to rely solely on the fact that they “Exceed Expectations” as an Associate. After all, they could excel in their current role but struggle in the new one.

What does this mean?

Organizations should have well-defined competency frameworks that outline the different roles, their responsibilities, and the growth path
Employees should regularly evaluate themselves based on this competency framework, considering both their current role and the one they aspire to
Managers should assess their reports using the same competency framework, accounting for both the current role and the next level
Promotions should only occur when there’s confidence that the individual will be competent in their new role

Points to consider

Being competent at the next role doesn’t mean you’d make the person work as a Sr. Associate for 6 months to “Test” them and still have them as an Associate and be paying them what you’d pay an Associate. Being competent here means seeing potential.

While there are a lot of nuances, if I were to simplify this:

If someone exceeds expectations in their current role but you don’t see strong potential for the next role, provide additional training until you witness that potential
If someone exceeds expectations in their current role and shows some signs of readiness for the next role, make an educated decision (considering other factors as well). If you’re confident, go ahead and promote them. If not, invest a little more in their development
If someone exceeds expectations in their current role and displays a lot of potential for the next role, it’s time to promote them

Promotions should set people up for success. Any approach that doesn’t fit this bill, should be discarded.

Hope you enjoyed the read! If you have feedback or a different perspective, I’d love to know. Catch me on Twitter or mail me at me@chettyarun.com Thanks!

5 year people plan

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Wed, 10 May 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Companies have a 5 year business plan or a 5 year product plan. We often see a long-term business/product strategy. But we rarely see a 5 year people plan. I strongly think there should be a 5 year people plan just like a 5 year product/business roadmap. Or, a plan for when you’re 10 times your current employee count.

Let’s say you’re a 50 people startup right now. Think about a time when you’ll be 500. Try answering these questions:

How’s such a large team communicating with each other?
How transparent is the team? How can information still be transparent?
How will you make sure the 500 people team is a diverse set of folks?
As leaders, how are you selling your org vision to 500 people?
How do you make sure everyone understands that vision clearly?
How many managers would you have at that scale? What’s the manager to report ratio?
How’s hiring happening with so many new hiring managers? How’s quality kept under control?
How many HR business partners would you have at that scale? How many people are mapped one HR partner?
How are you coaching your star players who’ll go on to lead large teams when you’re 5000?
Are all these folks remote? Or, at one single location under one single office roof?
How are programs like Rewards and Recognition, L&D, Performance Management, etc., working?
What new employee policies are coming into the picture?
How are leaders addressing such a large team?
How are you taking feedback from such a large team? How often are you taking feedback?
How are you objectively calculating employee happiness?
How are the new employees learning about the history of the org?
How’s the team still agile? What processes might slow you down?
How big should be your admin team? How big should be your people-ops team?
How’s employer branding? What do you think should be the persona of your org in the industry?
How are parties happening? How often and how exactly are 500 people meeting for celebrations?

I can go on and on and on but you get the drift. Now coming to who should answer all these questions, it should be the founders, leaders, and HR heads. Just like a long-term product vision doc, have a long-term people vision doc ready. So that you’re well prepared for expansion.

Hope you enjoyed the read! If you have feedback or a different perspective, I’d love to know. Catch me on Twitter or mail me at me@chettyarun.com Thanks!

Bio

me@chettyarun.com (Chetty Arun) — Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Public speaking

I like public speaking and enjoy sharing my knowledge and insights with various audiences. If you’re interested in hosting me as a speaker for your event, conference, podcast, or a panel discussion, please feel free to reach out to me at me@chettyarun.com

Short Bio

Chetty Arun, the Culture Head at Razorpay, has played multiple roles since joining as a core founding member. Previously leading the design function, he successfully expanded the team from 1 to over 70 designers. Currently, his main focus is shaping the organization’s culture and driving its growth.

Beyond Razorpay, he is a leadership coach working towards his professional certification, and an active partner at MarsShot Ventures, where he supports early-stage startups as an angel investor and advisor.

Culture Head at Razorpay on Chetty Arun

Leaders need to figure out their AI stack

How I set up Sazed to turn journaling into a guided conversation

The problems I had with normal journaling

What I wanted instead

Why Sazed?

How I set up journaling with OpenClaw

The graph layer with Kuzu

Examples of how the conversation changes

Why this works better for me

Introducing Hoid

Why Hoid?

What Hoid actually does

Pulse checks at Razorpay - Part 1

Hands-on Leadership

So, micromanage the team then?

Evaluating leaders at a startup

How are leaders different?

So, how should leaders be assessed?

Talk about your work, often

Do more. Talk less

Do less. Talk more

The balance

Your first designer

As founders, you need designers who fundamentally believe in your vision.

Asset and liability model

Hackathons for business teams

When to promote someone

You’re doing pretty good at your current role. You exceed all expectations at your current role. We are promoting you!

When do you promote people then?

What does this mean?

Points to consider

5 year people plan

Bio

Public speaking

Short Bio

Speaker Image