To Queue Or Not To Queue - India Vs. Britain.

This article explores the differences between the British and Indians in terms of the ‘Queueing’ psychology, and its impacts on work in Global environments.

While in Britain with it’s sense of ‘Fair Play’ and Linear thought, Queues are formed and people wait patiently for their turn, in traditional India, there is no concept, culturally of a Queue and typically, the approach is seemingly random and arced. While you can see Indians Queueing up at Railway stations for tickets and government offices, these are behaviours learnt and enforced due to the requirement of the system.

Culturally and by instinct, Indians will not tend to Queue. Once you are in India, you can see this behaviour replicated day in and day out in many establishments and it also manifests in work.

To Westerners and Indians exposed to the West, this is highly irritating. What causes Indians to behave in this fashion though? And does queueing always work in India’s complex and populous environment?

This article explores: 1)   The origins of Queuing in Britain. 2)   Why it has not been a part of India’s Cultural Psyche. 3)   Differing notions of Fair Play in Britain and India 4)   Whether either one is better. 5)   Impacts of the ‘Queueing Psychology’ on work in a Global environment

Britain

Queueing is regarded as a ‘National Characteristic’ of the British. Though it is a French word, queuing is said to have originated during the Industrial Revolution in Britain with shops being set up in a structured manner, requiring people to Queue. Poverty was rife despite massive expansion of manufacturing, and queueing was associated with hardships since people queued up to get hand outs.

Word War II established Britain’s reputation as a queueing nation, although in reality, the authorities were often called in to establish order as people queued for long hours in bad weather for rations. Later, it became etiquette associated with the British sense of fair play. And the British are of course admired for their consideration for others through disciplined queueing.

It was the Linear, sequential mentality of the British that made it conducive for queueing to take roots.

India:

While the British are linear minded, sequential, methodical and amenable to the concept of queueing, Indians are cyclic and their Psychology comprises of circular and ‘seemingly’ random behaviours.

‘Seemingly’ random, because there is a method in what is perceived as the madness – which is very evident In traffic in India. The movements of Indians is akin to ‘Brownian Motion' of particles in nature.

While this subject requires a separate article, let us leave it at that for now and ‘Seemingly random’ will be used in the rest of the article to describe this very Indian behaviour. In addition, while Britain is a relatively small country, India is massive both by size and population. There are reasons as to why Queuing is not integral to Indian culture.

Let us explore four of these reasons.

Reason One:

Economics, economics, economics…

Take a look at the following video. It is the video of a ‘Paan’ maker. A Paan is a betel leaf filled with betelnut and other assorted eats that Indians usually eat after a meal to aid digestion. The Paan maker has received an order to make several Paans and he is in the process of making them. But as he makes them he is visited by numerous other customers and he proceeds to serve them taking quick breaks between making the Paans.

Observe the customer who ordered the Paans waiting patiently for his Paans to be made while the Paanmaker serves several other customers, as he keeps turning back to the Paans. Indians are adept at multi-tasking indeed!

We will analyse the video after you have watched it…

Now that you have seen the video, and the seemingly random attending to customers, the prime question to be asked is this – Had the Paan-maker focussed entirely on executing the large Paan order and let the others wait, what would have happened?

1)   They would have formed a large group waiting for him to finish. A large group seen at a shop could deter other potential customers since they foresee delay.

2)   Customers waiting nearby would see that he is focussing on the large order alone and it would take too long, hence they would make their way to other shops and the Paan-maker would lose his custom.

3)   Likewise, the sight of a large queue would deter potential customers and they would head elsewhere.

Thus simple economics plays a huge role in Indians not queueing up – a requirement of a hugely populated country. And you have seen a classic example of ‘Multi-tasking’ by the Paan-maker. This is a characteristic of Indians which allows them to accomplish more under certain circumstances.

Reason Two:

Time and Fairness – Britain Vs India

You see that the customer who placed the large order of Paans waits patiently while other customers are being served.

The association of ‘Time’ with fairness is natural in a time bound culture like Britain.

But in traditional India where time is of no consequence, fairness is to not let the person with the smallest duration of a task to be done, to stand for a longer time. Instead, the person whose work takes the longest, will wait and allow the smaller tasks of others to be completed. This, in the Indian sense, is fair-play. It is not associated with ‘Time’.

This is the reason why the customer with the large Paan order in the Paan shop waits patiently while the Paan Maker attends to other customers even while executing his order.

Before we go to reason three, let is have a look at an experiment conducted by the University of Southern Denmark.

An experiment:

To Queue or Not to Queue – which is the better option?

Let us consider a check-in at an Airport scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. Assume that there are 6 customers in a Queue and that the time for each for check in is 10 minutes.

Now the collective waiting time for all the passengers is 10 + 20 + 30 + 40 + 50 = 150 minutes. Which is two and a half hours.

Let us look at another scenario.

Let us assume that we have told the customers that there is no first come first served service, and that anyone could be picked at random for service. (Remember this is hypothetical and we all know how irate passengers in the West would get at such a declaration).

Now if passengers were to follow this dictate then, they might not all turn up at the same time, that is, 9 am for check in. There might be a more random distribution.

Let us say two customers turn up at 9 a.m.

The waiting time for the first passenger is 0 min and 10 mins for the second so total = 10 mins

Now the third and fourth passengers arrive at 9.30 a.m.

The waiting time for the passenger 3 is 0 min and 10 mins for passenger 4 so total = 10 mins

And finally the last 2 arrive at 10 a.m.

The waiting time for the passenger 5 is 0 min and 10 mins for passenger 6 so total = 10 mins

So the collective waiting time for all 6 passengers is 30 minutes as compared to 150 minutes in the Queue system!

The scenario above is not entirely hypothetical.

Prof Lars Peter Osterdal of the University of Southern Denmark says "Queues, it's a wonderful example of a waste of time,"

"The problem with a regular queue where you serve first those who arrive first is that people tend to arrive too early." Osterdal and his colleague, assistant professor Trine Tornoe Platz, studied situations where aservice opens at a particular time and closes after every person has been served. Airlines that do not assign seats before boarding provide a good example.

Under the first-come-first-served system passengers arrive early and wait in line to get on to the plane because those who are first in line get the seat they want.

But the researchers experimented with different queuing systems, and when they told volunteer participants that people would be selected from the queue and served at random, the average wait was reduced.

Reason Three:

Population!

As you saw in in Paan Shop video, were Indians to queue and if the Paan-maker was to focus on one order at a time, the Dutch airline experiment would have been validated. A very large queue would have formed and efficiency of overall service affected not counting the time wasted by people in the long linear wait.

In a relatively sparsely populated country like Britain, queueing works well, but in India it could be counterproductive in many instances. To Queue or not to Queue – if that is the question, the answer perhaps lies in the old adage – ‘In Rome, behave like a Roman’.

Reason Four:

The answers lie in the past………

Behaviours are learnt over ages and certain regional/national behaviours cut across religions and beliefs.

THE EPICS: 

Traditional Hindu behaviours in India are intricately bound to the two epics – the Ramayana and the Mahabharata (Note that though in the west, these are categorised as ‘Mythology’, in traditional India they regarded as History.)

The Epics have long dictated the behaviours, values and morals of Hindus and are woven deeply into the fabric of life in traditional India. Anyone intending to understand India must realise that the Epics are not just stories but beacons to life. The Bhagvad Gita – the song of God is part of the Mahabharata and is to Hindus what the Bible is to Christians and Koran to Muslims.

In the epic ‘Mahabharata’, there is an interesting behaviour exhibited by Krishna, regarded as an incarnation of God..

And this behaviour can be seen almost everyday in India.

For instance, on a Railway platform, you wish to check with your Ticket Officer (Known as a Ticket Collector) about the location of your seat and carriage etc. and you approach him, you might find him surrounded by a few people making their own queries. If you, as a westerner, or an Indian who has imbibed western ways (Applies to Indians who live/have lived in the West and returned), wait for him to finish with them and turn to you, you might wait until the train leaves. Even as you are there waiting, others might come and steal your goose.

You have to, in a polite manner, push through gently and make yourself heard. Make eye contact and your issue will be addressed. This is critical.

This very clearly shows that Indians are more ‘Relationship Oriented’ while the Anglo Saxon West is predominantly ‘Rule Oriented’.

Now let us go back in time to the Epic, the ‘Mahabharata’…………….

Two cousins – the princes Arjuna and Duryodhana have declared war on each other and both have gone to meet Lord Krishna, regarded as a divine incarnation.

Lord Krishna is neutral and has said that one of them can have his Army fighting for him and the other can have Him as an advisor. Duryodhana arrives first and finds Krishna asleep in his chambers. Since it is impolite to wake up a sleeping man and in this case, God, he sits near Krishna’s head and waits for him to wake up.

Arjuna arrives next and since Krishna is asleep, sits near his feet and likewise, waits. Krishna wakes up and his eyes first fall upon Arjuna and he smiles and says to Arjuna – ‘I know why you are here, do you want my Army or do you want me as your advisor?’

Duryodhana is however upset and objects. He says to Krishna – ‘I was here first, hence I should get to choose first!’ Krishna says to him that according to ‘Dharma’ or ‘Righteous conduct in accordance with Nature’, he made eye contact with Arjuna first, hence Arjuna has the first choice.

The emphasis here is on ‘Nature’ or a ‘Natural Way’ and not a man made rule. It is a matter apart that Arjuna chooses Krishna as his Advisor, much to Duryodhana’s delight, since he wanted Krishna’s Army anyway.

This behaviour is replicated day in and day out in India, almost in every corner. The point is that God himself says that priority accorded is not by Rules, but by ‘Natural’ chance

(Do note that in modern India people are more time conscious, especially professionals and businessmen; however, this behaviour still persists generally.)

Indians in the workplace -

How Indians work and what impact this has on Relationships and Productivity in Global environments.

The very same tendency of Indians not to queue holds, when they work. While the British and other Anglo-Saxon countries make checklists and proceed in a methodical linear fashion, Indians will typically follow their instincts and work circularly. A glance at an Indian’s inbox will reveal that emails have been read randomly :).

While this cyclic thought process is creative, the element of ‘seeming’ randomness can be both beneficial as well as detrimental. It is hard to say which is better and depends on the situation. An Anglo Saxon National will typically attend to emails on a linear timestamp basis and until the job specified in that email is attended to, will not move on to the next email.

In this process he/she could miss the order or priority, while an Indian looking at the subjects and relying in instinct to choose which email to open, might hit it sooner. These are of course general behaviours and there are always exceptions to the rule.

One extremely beneficial ability that comes out of non-linear behaviours is that of multi-tasking as you saw in the Paan Shop video. However, the ‘seemingly’ random element in Indians can cause issues in relationships and Indians will do well to first realise expectations of their Global partners and then manage them.

Indians need to understand the ‘Linear’ thought process of the Anglo Saxon West. And Global partners will do well to understand that Indians are not linear, and clarify their expectations rather than make assumptions and risk relationship break downs.

The author is the founder of Inderact Ltd, which is dedicated to help Indian and Global businesses to work better together and enhance productivity and relationships through training, coaching and consulting. The author maybe contacted at Hemant@inderact.com