Sumer Datta

@Billion478 🙏🏼🙏🏼

@SumerDattaa Thank you so much for putting it across so well 👏👏✨✨

Every woman leader I've met has two jobs: leading… and defending her right to lead. As we approach Women's Day on Sunday, here's a hard truth I would like everyone to acknowledge: The women who make it to leadership aren't just excellent at their jobs. They're exhausted from having to be. Because excellence isn't enough, they have to be excellent and constantly prove they deserve to be there. Here's what I've watched happen repeatedly: > A woman presents a strategy and the room is skeptical. A man presents the same strategy the next week and the room calls it innovative. > A woman makes a tough decision and suddenly she's "difficult." A man makes the same decision, he’s "decisive" and "strong." > A woman negotiates her salary, she's "aggressive" and "not a team player." A man does the same…he’s "knowing his worth." The pattern is so consistent it's predictable. And it's destroying brilliant careers. A senior woman leader once told me about her journey to the C-suite: "I had to be twice as prepared for every meeting. Three times as strategic in every decision. And still, people questioned if I belonged there. My male peers could be 'works in progress.' I had to be flawless from day one. They got credit for potential. I only got credit for perfect execution." Here's what breaks my heart: These women aren't just fighting external battles. They're fighting internal ones too. Questioning themselves in ways their male colleagues never do: - "Was I too assertive in that meeting?" - “Did I come across as too ambitious?" - “Should I have been softer in my delivery?" Four decades of watching women leaders, and the pattern is clear: They manage up, down, and sideways like everyone else. But they also manage perceptions, stereotypes, and constant scrutiny of their leadership style in ways men never face. + They lead teams, and defend their tone. + They deliver results, and defend their ambition. + They make decisions, and defend their right to make them. It's exhausting. And it's why we're still losing talented women from leadership pipelines. Here's what needs to change: ✅ Stop calling assertive women "aggressive" while calling assertive men "confident." ✅ Stop questioning women's decisions more harshly than you question men's. ✅ Stop making women prove they belong in rooms men enter without question. To every leader - regardless of gender - reading this: This Women's Day, the best thing you can do isn't post about "celebrating women leaders." It's noticing when women are interrupted, questioned differently, or held to different standards. And using your voice to change it. And to every woman leading while also defending her right to lead: I see you. I respect you. And I hope the world becomes lighter for you - not because you became tougher, but because we became better. Happy Women’s Day!

Avoiding Violations for a Better X Experience As a dedicated X user, I believe in upholding the platform’s rules and regulations to keep it a thriving space for ideas and connection. X’s guidelines are designed to promote respectful, authentic, and lawful interactions, and I’m committed to following them in every post and interaction. Violating these rules—whether through hate speech, spam, or other prohibited actions—harms the community and risks account penalties. To avoid this, I take proactive steps: I review X’s policies regularly, think carefully before posting, and ensure my content respects others’ rights and perspectives. Compliance isn’t a burden; it’s a way to contribute to a platform where everyone can engage without fear. I also encourage others to report rule-breaking content responsibly, as this helps X stay true to its values. Mistakes can happen, but staying educated about the rules and being mindful of our digital footprint can prevent violations. Let’s all commit to making X a space where creativity and dialogue flourish within the boundaries of respect and responsibility. By following the rules, we ensure X remains a platform that empowers voices while maintaining a safe, inclusive environment for everyone.

Yesterday, I met a founder whose company is now valued at $9B USD and I remember telling his manager years ago: "That boy will run a company one day." His manager laughed at it back then but I was sure of it. Infact, I’d been waiting for this conversation since the day I met him, years ago. Here's what happened that day: At one of my earliest organisations, a client project had gone sideways - and it was a massive error from the client side. Leadership was furious, looking for heads to roll. The blame somehow landed on a junior employee - young kid, barely six months into the job. I was in that meeting - twenty people around the table and senior leadership ready to terminate this junior employee. Then this young executive - mid-level at best, no real authority, everything to lose - stood up and vouched for his team member. The room froze - dead silence. Even his own manager's face went white and the CEO stared at him for what felt like an eternity. But this guy didn’t budge and held his ground for his teammate. That moment - that single moment told me everything about him. After that meeting, I pulled that young executive aside and asked him, "Do you know what you just did?" He looked shaken and said, “Probably ended my career?" And I said, "No. You just started it - the real one." That day made something clear to me: being a boss is a job but being a leader is a choice. You can be promoted into authority - you get the title, the team, the decision-making power. But leadership? That's something you choose, every single day, regardless of what your business card says. That young man chose it that day. Years passed. He got promoted, as people like him always do. Then he left, started his own company and very recently connected with me on LinkedIn. And yesterday, we met and he told me his company is now valued at $9B USD. It all made me realise how it’s not just the performance metrics that make one a leader, but the choices they make when no one's forcing them to make them. The boss manages because that's the job description. But the leader leads because that's who they are. That conference room moment years ago? That’s where his $9B company was truly born. In the choice to lead before anyone asked him to. My advice to anyone reading this: The next time you're in a room where someone vulnerable needs protecting, where taking responsibility means risking something, where doing the right thing isn't the safe thing - choose it anyway. Because titles create bosses, whereas choices create leaders. And the future you build depends on which one you decide to be.

I once met an employee who hadn’t taken a single leave in 8 months - entirely by her own choice. When I asked why, she said, almost proudly, “If I stop, the work stops and I actually like to fulfill my responsibilities.” I smiled and asked, “But 8 months is a very long time…you don’t mind that? Not even a little?” She paused for a moment, then said something that stayed with me long after that conversation ended: “No, I don’t mind the work. What I mind is that no one notices.” And then she added, with a softness that felt heavier than anger: “My manager checks on my work every day…but he’s never once checked on me.” I asked her if she had ever felt like walking away. She looked down and whispered, “I’ve thought of quitting at least five times this year. Not because the work is hard…because doing it alone is harder.” Her voice didn’t sound angry. It just sounded lonely. And standing there, listening to her, a simple truth hit me harder than any leadership book ever has: The biggest leadership failure I see today isn’t bad strategy. It’s bad humanity. We obsess over deadlines, dashboards, deliverables…but forget the one thing that actually keeps teams alive: people. This young woman loved her work. She wasn’t tired of the role - she was tired of being invisible in it. All she needed was one manager to say, “You’ve done an incredible job. You deserve a break.” One moment of acknowledgment… and her potential would have multiplied. It made me realise something painfully obvious: A good leader checks in on the work. A great one checks in on the person. And most forget the second entirely. Believe it or not but people rarely break because of workload. They break because nobody notices they’re breaking. ➡️ I’ve seen high performers crumble while still hitting targets. ➡️ I’ve seen teams deliver extraordinary outcomes while quietly burning at both ends. ➡️ I’ve seen brilliant minds spiral when nobody asked them a simple, “How are you… really?” And every time, the signs were there. But many leaders don’t see them - because they’re only looking at output, and never at the human producing it. We all need to understand that great leadership isn’t about asking, “Is the work on track?” It’s about asking, “Are you okay?” - and actually meaning it. Because if more leaders checked in on the person instead of the task, we’d see: ✅ less burnout ✅ less attrition ✅ more honesty ✅ more courage And above all, more humanity at work So here’s my simple reminder: Your team is not a machine. They’re human beings carrying whole worlds inside them. And sometimes, the most powerful leadership move you can make is not a strategy, or a decision, or a plan - It’s a conversation.

This is corporate hypocrisy at its finest. Companies spend millions recruiting "diverse talent," then spend years trying to make them think exactly like everyone else. It’s almost comical….you can’t hire rebels for their spark and then punish them for not behaving like candles. And yet…that’s exactly what so many companies do. I’ve watched this pattern unfold more times than I can count: Organisations proudly say, “We want fresh thinking. We want innovation. We want someone different.” And then the moment that “different” person joins, the real message becomes clear: “Sure, be different…just like the rest of us.” And it shows up in small, quiet moments: - The consultant who joined from manufacturing - told to "understand retail first" before sharing insights. - The startup founder who joined corporate - every innovative idea met with "we need more process around that." - The international hire - cultural suggestions dismissed as "not understanding the local market." Slowly, difference stops being an asset and becomes something uncomfortable to manage. Because here’s the unfiltered truth: Companies love the idea of diversity, but they struggle with the reality of it. Because difference is noisy. + Difference questions things. + Difference challenges comfort zones. + Difference doesn’t fit neatly into templates, SOPs, and “how we’ve always done things.” And many leaders want creativity… just not the discomfort that comes with it. I remember a candidate we hired years ago - unconventional background, sharp mind, fresh voice. Within months, the feedback from his manager was: “He’s brilliant, but he doesn’t fit in.” Translation: “He thinks differently, and that scares me.” That moment made me realise the real problem that exists in corporate culture. Hiring for difference but forcing conformity is like buying a sports car and complaining that it’s too fast. And after four decades of watching teams rise, break, and rebuild, here’s what I know for sure: People don’t leave because they’re different. They leave because organisations don’t know what to do with differences. ✅ They leave when curiosity is labelled defiance. ✅ They leave when questions are treated as disrespect. ✅ They leave when individuality is tolerated during hiring…and corrected during probation. ✅ They leave when “culture fit” becomes a sophisticated word for “please behave like everyone else.” If you truly want innovation, you have to embrace the inconvenience that comes with it. Let them question. Let them challenge. Let people think differently. Let them push your comfort zones a little. Because sameness feels safe - but it never builds anything legendary. So the next time you hire someone “for their fresh perspective,” ask yourself honestly: Are you ready to let them be different? Or are you preparing to mould them into another version of everyone else? Your answer determines whether you build a workplace… or just another assembly line.

@Billion478 Wah

सपनों की कोई उम्र नहीं होती, बस उन्हें देखने का हौसला चाहिए। ….🌹

@IAmAparnaDesai Happy Republic Day

Happy Republic Day… a celebration of our people, our freedom, and the spirit of India.. 🧡🤍💚

I once hired someone based on a 20-minute conversation and a gut feeling - no assessments, no scorecards, no AI screening. That hire became one of the best leaders I've ever worked with, stayed for 12 years, and built a team that transformed the organisation. Today, that same person might not have made it past the ATS. Back then, we didn't have AI or data dashboards. But we had something most HR tech still can't replicate - intuition And I'm starting to wonder: Are we losing it? Four decades ago, hiring looked completely different. You sat across from someone and watched how they answered not just with words, but with their entire presence. + The pause before a difficult question. + The way they carried themselves when discussing failure. + The light in their eyes when they talked about what they loved. We made decisions based on what data couldn't measure: energy, authenticity, hunger, potential. Now, we have algorithms that scan resumes in milliseconds, platforms that predict performance, and AI that ranks candidates by matching keywords. And we've never been more confused about who to hire. Here's what I see happening: ➡️ The candidate who took an unconventional path? Filtered out because algorithms don't recognise non-linear careers. ➡️ The person who'd bring fresh perspective? Rejected because they don't match the "ideal candidate profile" built from people who already work here. The diamond in the rough? Never gets polished because screening tools only recognise diamonds already shining. You see, I’m not anti-technology. I've built HR systems, and I understand the value of data. But somewhere between optimising and analysing, we stopped trusting ourselves. - We've replaced observation with dashboards. - We've traded intuition for algorithms. But the uncomfortable truth is that data might tell you what happened but intuition tells you what could happen. And the future of any organisation depends on the "could," not the "did." After four decades in the people’s business, here's what I can say with absolute certainty: The person across from you will never be fully captured in a dashboard. And sometimes the best hiring decision you’ll ever make is the one that defies the spreadsheet - and listens to the gut that’s spent years learning what potential sounds like. So to every young HR professional out there — trust your instincts. Let data guide you, not govern you. Because the future of HR isn’t human or digital. It’s human with digital. Where technology gives it insight - but humanity gives it meaning.

@Meghamahi07 Hahaha

Planning to open a creche for stupid men who refused to grow up. Your mommies can come and deposit you with me and you will be trained.

If you can’t read people, you can’t lead people. Simple truth - but one that I strongly believe and is getting lost in the noise of leadership jargon and dashboards these days. Over the last four decades, I’ve sat in hundreds of boardrooms and across thousands of people. And the best leaders I’ve ever seen shared one quiet superpower: Emotional Intelligence Not the kind you put on PowerPoint slides. The kind that: + sees potential long before performance does + lets you sense when someone’s afraid to speak up + catches the tremor in a voice before a resignation letter arrives Leadership has always been about reading what’s unsaid. Reading people is not a soft skill. It's THE skill. ✅ It's knowing when to push and when to pause. ✅ It's recognising that the quiet person in the corner has something important to say but needs to be invited to speak. ✅ It's understanding that your star performer's recent drop in quality isn't laziness, it's burnout you should have caught three weeks ago. I've seen brilliant strategists destroy teams because they were blind to human signals: + The CEO who kept piling work on his top performer because she never complained, until she quit from exhaustion. + The executive who missed that his "constructive feedback" was delivered so harshly that people dreaded one-on-ones. + The leader who thought silence meant agreement when it actually meant "I've given up trying to tell you what's wrong." You can't learn any of this from a dashboard or an algorithm The leaders who excel at this do three things consistently: 1️⃣ They observe: Not just what people say, but how they say it. Not just outcomes, but the energy behind them. 2️⃣ They ask: Real questions that create space for real answers. Not "Are you okay?" but "You seem quieter than usual - what's on your mind?" 3️⃣ They adjust: They change their approach based on what they're sensing, not rigidly following a plan when the humans aren't responding. But in today’s age, where AI writes reports and dashboards track behaviour, this ability - to really read people - is becoming a lost art. If you want to build loyalty, trust, and performance that lasts - learn to see beyond words. Look people in the eye. Listen between the lines. Because leadership isn’t about managing work. It’s about understanding humans. And if you can’t read people, you’ll never truly lead them.

Gen Z might be the most misunderstood generation I've worked with in 4 decades, and the most honest one. I speak to a lot of Gen Z professionals - through mentoring, advising, or just casual career conversations on a regular basis. And every time, I walk away thinking the same thing: They're not wrong. We just don't want to hear what they're saying. The complaints I hear about Gen Z: "They're disloyal" “They job-hop constantly" "They don't respect hierarchy" "They ask too many questions" Here's what I actually see when I talk to them: ✅ They're not disloyal, but they definitely are allergic to being lied to: And why wouldn’t they be? They watched their parents stay loyal to companies for decades, only to be laid off in one day when it suited the balance sheet. They're not going to repeat that mistake. ✅ They don't disrespect hierarchy, they disrespect hierarchy without purpose: When I ask them about difficult managers, it's never "I hate taking orders." It's “He tells me what to do but never explains why it matters." ✅ They're not asking too many questions: They're just asking the right ones that we got trained to stop asking. "Why are we doing this?" "How does my work contribute to the bigger picture?" "What does success actually look like?" Previous generations learned to keep their heads down and just execute. Gen Z didn’t. And I think that’s a good thing. Every young professional I’ve mentored works incredibly hard - when they see the meaning behind the work. They’ll take feedback, stay late, learn fast. They just won’t do it blindly, hoping someone notices someday. You want Gen Z loyalty? Give them respect, clarity, and a reason to care - not ping-pong tables. Because they’re not the problem. They’re holding up a mirror to one. They’re showing us everything we normalised: unclear direction, dishonest leadership, and work that pretends to be purposeful but isn’t. And they aren’t asking for anything revolutionary. They're asking for what we should have been demanding all along: to be treated like thinking humans, not mindless executors. They’re not disloyal. They’re just done exchanging loyalty for nothing. And if that makes us uncomfortable, perhaps that discomfort is exactly what we need. What are your thoughts on this?

I turned 63 this year - and I’ve never been late to a meeting. Not once. Not in four decades. It’s not because I'm naturally punctual. It’s because I see time as the simplest, purest form of respect. When you show up on time, you’re not just valuing your own discipline - you’re honouring someone else’s effort, preparation, and day. This habit started early in my career. Back then, I was the youngest person in the room most of the time, desperate to prove I belonged there. I knew I couldn’t control how much experience I had - but I could control how dependable I was. So I started setting alarms, arriving ten minutes early, reviewing notes before the meeting began. It became second nature. And over the years, I realised something powerful - discipline compounds. Being on time isn’t just about time. It builds credibility, trust, and calm. When you walk into a room without making others wait, you communicate something deeper than punctuality - you communicate reliability. Because lateness, whether by five minutes or fifty, always says the same thing: “My time matters more than yours.” I’ve built companies, led teams, travelled across time zones, and seen hundreds of professionals rise - and the ones who rise fastest aren’t just the most talented. They’re the ones who respect time - theirs and everyone else’s. It’s not glamorous advice. But it’s the kind that shapes character quietly. Be the person who shows up when they said they would. It’s the simplest way to earn trust - and the hardest to fake.

@ItsSkywalkers Glad you enjoyed it

@SumerDattaa Its encouraging

Sometime back, a CEO said to me, "nobody wants to work anymore", and I almost laughed. Not because I lost my temper, but because that single phrase revealed everything wrong with his leadership. After four decades in HR, I've learned something fundamental: When leaders say "nobody wants to work anymore," what they really mean is "nobody wants to work for me anymore." And they're right. Just not in the way they think. "Nobody wants to work anymore" is the laziest narrative in business today. What people don't want anymore is to be underpaid, overworked, and unacknowledged. Here's what actually happens: • Some companies give 2% raises while posting record profit & hefty bonuses • They promote zero people internally despite having multiple senior openings • Their "recognition program" is an automated birthday email Then they wonder why their best people keep leaving. The problem isn't that people don't want to work. It’s that they’ve finally figured out what they're worth, and they're done settling for less. I’ve watched this cycle play out for decades: + In the 1990s, we convinced people that loyalty to companies was sacred. Meanwhile, companies eliminated pensions and cut benefits without blinking. + In the 2000s, we preached "work-life balance" in job postings. Meanwhile, responding to emails at midnight became an unspoken requirement. + In the 2010s, we called them "culture carriers" and "family." Meanwhile, we laid them off via Zoom calls to protect quarterly numbers. And we're shocked they stopped believing us? The workforce didn't change, but the tolerance for corporate hypocrisy did. We should stop blaming the workforce for our leadership failures because: ➡️ The generation that "doesn't want to work" is the same generation working three side hustles to afford rent. ➡️ The employees who "lack commitment" are the same ones who watched their parents get laid off after 25 years of loyalty. ➡️ The talent that's "too demanding" is simply asking for what we should have been offering all along: fair pay, reasonable hours, and basic human dignity. The future belongs to companies that understand that people still want to work, contribute, and build something meaningful. They just don't want to sacrifice their mental health, financial security, and personal lives for leaders who won't even learn their names. ✅ Pay them fairly? They show up motivated. ✅ Invest in their growth? They build careers, not just resumes. ✅ Acknowledge their contributions? They go beyond job descriptions. So, if nobody wants to work for you anymore, maybe it's time to ask why. The answer might be uncomfortable. But it's a lot cheaper than replacing your workforce every 18 months.

@okmedics Thanks

@SumerDattaa This is very informative 👏

@hriidoy_9e You mean should read it

@SumerDattaa Every CEO read this

@Ayeshanazz11 Appreciate it

Early in my career, I built a habit that everyone around me thought was vain. 35 years ago, I made a commitment to set aside 60 minutes of learning every single day, no exceptions. Not when I felt like it. Not when I had time. Every single day. Whether it was reading a new HR trend, studying a case study, diving into emerging technology, or exploring a philosophy that challenged my thinking, I blocked that hour like my career depended on it. Because it did. Back then, it wasn’t easy. Workdays were hectic, and deadlines were relentless. But that daily discipline meant I never became outdated, even as industries, technologies, and generations changed. That one hour showed up everywhere, + While others scrambled to understand new workforce trends, I'd already spent weeks studying them. + When AI started reshaping recruitment, I wasn't panicking, I’d been reading about it for months. + When remote work exploded, I didn't need crash courses, I’d been studying distributed teams for years. Discipline is choosing the hard thing today to avoid the impossible thing tomorrow. My 60 minutes aren’t optional. It happens between 9-10 PM, every day. Some days it's Harvard Business Review. Other days it's a book on behavioural psychology. Sometimes it's studying companies that fascinate or terrify me. The topic doesn't matter. The consistency does. And the compound effect is staggering. 60 minutes × 365 days = 365 hours of learning per year. That's more than 9 full work weeks of continuous education. Most people don't invest 9 hours learning new skills in an entire year. Discipline isn’t punishment. It’s insurance against regret. ✅ Skip learning today → Become irrelevant tomorrow. ✅ Ignore feedback today → Face stagnation tomorrow. ✅ Avoid change today → Struggle with survival tomorrow. Four decades in, I can say this with absolute certainty: Success doesn’t come from intensity. It comes from consistency. And discipline is what makes consistency possible.

@uzmarajput05 Thanks

@SumerDattaa Discipline is choosing the hard thing now for an easier tomorrow. Your daily learning habit is a powerful example of this principle.

It took me years to learn that not all criticism is feedback. Some of it is just projection in disguise. When you’ve been in the people business for as long as I have…four decades and counting, you develop a certain muscle. Not just for reading people. But for reading between people. And here’s what I’ve found again and again: Some of the harshest criticism isn’t really about your work. It’s about: - Their fear - Their insecurity - Their discomfort + I’ve seen brilliant women called “too ambitious” by leaders who feared being outshone. + I’ve seen introverted stars labelled “not a culture fit” because they didn’t play the game loud enough. + I’ve seen young talent crushed by managers who couldn’t handle someone thinking differently. Early in my career, I took all of it to heart. Every word. Every raised eyebrow. Every sideways comment. I thought I had to change, fit in, and soften my edges. But the truth is: The moment you start building something meaningful, someone will have a problem with it. And not all of that “feedback” is yours to carry. One of the most freeing lessons I’ve learned is this: Criticism often says more about them than it does about you. Of course, real feedback is gold. I’ve been shaped and sharpened by mentors who cared enough to call me out. But I’ve also learned to separate that from criticism rooted in ego, not insight. Here’s how you can filter it out too: ✅ Is it specific? Or just vague discomfort dressed up as feedback. ✅ Is it consistent? Or a one-off reaction based on someone’s mood or bias. ✅ Is it useful? Or just noise trying to shrink you into someone else’s comfort zone. If it’s not helping you grow, it’s probably not worth holding onto. And here’s the kicker: once you stop internalising every opinion, you start owning your voice…fully, unapologetically. So if you’re building something bold right now, and the critics are getting louder, don’t panic. You’re probably just getting closer to the work that actually matters.. Keep going.