'The One'

I was wondering for long time, what is wrong with being nice, and why exactly being good is not enough? I felt it strongly when I started my career in a corporate firm. But now over the period of time, I have understood something quite interesting. 

If we talk in terms of percentages, we can say 90% of the people are good. Even this ratio can go up to 99%. Just go on the road and try to ask this question to any individual, everyone will try to fit himself (or herself) in the category of ’Good People’. What exactly makes them good is the ability to distinguish between what is good and what is bad. All those who can differentiate between 'The Good' and 'The Bad', can come under the category of good people. 

But does just being 'Good' help? Probably NO. Then there comes a category of 'Smart' people. When we move to this category, the percentage really drops down to 40-50%, or even lower. Smart people not only know what is good and what is bad, but also they can act accordingly. Atleast they can act swiftly, that no one can gauge the underlying reality. And this helps these smart people to steer away from the problems. Smart people can differentiate themselves from the rest by their efficiency and apt skills. But are these smart people really successful and well respected? If not, then there must be something that lies above just being smart.

Only Smartness cannot bring respect to you. To earn respect you need to be wise. Hence you have to have wisdom to move ahead. Just to give an example there are many Good - Smart firms out there in the market, but very few of them are well respected by the public. And this category again brings down the percentage to a level not even more than 7-10%.

Now as we have really boiled down to such a low percentage, we can be rest assured that being good-smart-wise should help us to distinguish ourselves from the others. But what do we think about such kind of people in and around our work space? Do we consider them successful? I think 'NO' these people are merely treated as bovine. That is doing a good work, and making no harm to others. Then does it mean that having above characteristics won’t help and we are on wrong footing to explore this further? And what is it that makes you different from the others and still be good, smart and wise?

Just consider the graph above, if you are hovering around 50-60% i.e. what we call as 'Very Good', you cannot really differentiate yourself from the other Good people that are around 80-90% of the mass.

I think the key lies in how we use them. And just than using, it is more to do with how do we encash these qualities. Let’s take an example of someone who is just starting his (/her) career. He gets hired in a good firm - Good. He gets assigned to a particular task earlier than his peers - Very Good. He starts learning new things quickly; he knows how to deliver his duties - Smart. He stands out amongst his peers - Very Smart. He still knows his limitations, he respects the work culture, he is compliant with the terms - He is Wise. But you see that this person hardly gets going ahead on his path. In the year end, this person ends up getting rewards just like his ordinary peers. If lucky he can get something little better than others, but definitely not in proportion with how good he has performed. All this is just because he didn't know how to capitalize his qualities.

It is just like you had a good crop standing in a very fertile field, but you never harvested it. In this case your earnings must be just equal to the one who has barren land. Percentage of people who can harvest their skills or qualities is really low, even lower than 1%. Unless you get there, you will always keep wondering why good qualities are not paying you back. In turn it holds true for all the good qualities, it is not enough just to have enough good skills or qualities, we should be able to harvest - capitalize them.

If only we can make it to that 'The One' percent, then only we can feel the difference between 'The Classes' and 'The Masses'.

Better than the Best

Today morning I opened up the news paper and without surprise it was full with news and admiration about women across the world. Obviously the occasion was the 'Woman's Day 2010'. I went through almost all the pages but could hardly find anything other than women success stories. One thought by Swami Vivekanand was quoted somewhere "Progress of the country can be determined by looking at the position of  a Woman in that country". Nice thought ! And I felt proud to be a citizen of one of the countries (India obviously) that have offered many activities for woman empowerment. 

With this thought in mind I moved ahead with my schedule. But something was still on my mind. Something was stinging continuously : Why are we celebrating the Woman's Day ? I want to sincerely mention here that this thought was not out of the male chauvinism. Haven't we offered enough freedom to women so far? and what does freedom really mean? 

Does Freedom mean free to excel in what you are doing / want to do? or does freedom mean that you are free to follow someone? Most of the articles in the newspaper were oriented more towards the second kind of freedom than the first one... Freedom to Follow... and that is what was haunting my mind. 

I want to compare Women Freedom with freedom of India. It is always said that India has got political freedom but it could barely get cultural freedom. Still many of the government systems and social structures are following the western countries. Indian population  is just trying to follow the western population to show that they are equally good or even better than their western counterparts. I consider same is the situation with women. Most of the efforts are directed in chasing the men dominated areas and to prove that women are better than men in doing some 'XYZ' things. I want to ask one question here:

"Why to be Better when you can be the BEST"

Does Chitale Bandhu (Famous Sweet Maker in Pune, Maharashtra) come out and say that we are dominating the area where women had dominated so far? Does Sanjeev Kapoor ever mention that he is better than any woman in cooking ? Did Kamal Hasan say (Ref: Chachi 420) that he can play leading woman roles better than any heroine? I guess no... these people are just doing what they thing they can do the best. And they are at the top just because of their Talent. 

Then why we say "Bachendri Pal is the first woman to conquer the Everest" ? or "Ms. ABC is first in girls in XYZ exam" ? or "Ms. ABC is First President / CEO / Chairman" ? Why do we insist on the word 'First Woman'? Or is it that there was a race between all the women in the world and then these ladies came first ? 

I think the answer is NO. These people are excelling because they are talented that way. And we should not take away their credit by discriminating them on the basis of gender. If we say that this specific mention is to motivate other Women then it is acceptable up to certain extent but still it is not fully convincing. 

I think we are confusing the two terms Equality and Competition. We are putting more efforts in wining the competition over the other gender than achieving equality with the other gender. Now a days educationalists are insisting more on skill based training. In a nut shell you should enhance the skills you have to achieve excellence, than trying to learn new skills with which others are succeeding. Similarly, I believe we should try to achieve the excellence in what we can do the best. 

I think, women empowerment has two facets : Upliftment and Opportunities... thats all.

What we have talked so far is more over about Opportunities. Uplifting the woman in underprivileged areas, conservative societies is something really required and some social activists are dedicating their life towards it. Mahatma Phule (Woman Education), Raja Ram Mohan Roy (abolished the practice of Sati) are few to name who believed in real improvement of women in the society. And we still need more of these people to achieve complete social justice. 

Hence to say, while solving the problem we are focusing more on the wrong side of the solution. There should be right balance between the actions. Extremism / Chauvinism of any sense is dangerous. More than fifty years ago social position of Dalits in India was not good. Some efforts and steps towards uplifting their status helped them in gaining certain level of equality and opportunities. But the main tool used to achieve this (Reservations) is now under question. The approach that helped in certain way to achieve equality is itself now creating the social inequality and barriers between the classes. I hope this should not be the future of Women Centric Activities. 

Finally focusing on beating the male counterpart is not the solution. Rather women can be best in certain areas based on their individual skills. By the current competition sometimes they can prove themselves better, but one thing should be kept in mind. 

"Better is the enemy of the Best"

Whats the Deal .... to Lead

'Think Positive', 'Be Proactive', 'Everybody is a Leader'...... and so on, day by day the list grows on and we are surrounded with more and more principles. And so am I. More we read and more we learn, we keep on accumulating plethora of hints to be a good human being. Isn't it really exciting? Indeed it is. But if we all know about these principles then why do we find everything around us just not following those golden principles?

What contemplated me more to think about this issue is the increased focus of senior management in training the employees. Robin Sharma has quoted in one of his articles that the corporate leadership wants him to inculcate leadership culture into its employees. They want the employees to imbibe in their mind that everyone is a leader irrespective of the designation. Good Thought! Just like a few I mentioned earlier. 

Then where exactly everything fails? Why do we still find most of the employees still thinking with narrow minded approach. Why cant they focus on the overall picture? And whom to blame if it is not sorted out ? The human tendency or the failure of leadership? 

I strongly feel there is a difference in willing to have it, acting to have it and having it. The leadership is willing to have the leadership principles inculcated in the company. But are they acting to have it is the BIG Question. Would the training suffice the need? I doubt.

I would like to pose some question over here. How many times does a senior leader have an effective communication with the individual employee? How many times do they keep aside the regular stuff of work and think together on the company's well being, the Customers, the Market. The outcome might not be something great but it is a great opportunity to understand each other. Such discussions at informal level help in reflecting the views on each other. And this would give birth to thought leadership. The individual employee can start thinking on some of the aspects related to organization about which he/she has never even imagined before. It will also help deviate the focus from daily routine tensions. The employee can then start thinking about the bigger problems in front of organization, and that is where we would achieve the first step.

I find training employees in this fashion is very much similar to teaching a first language to baby. The first language child starts speaking is considered as a 'Mother-Tongue'. And a mother (parents) has to teach the language to the child; they cant expect a baby-sitter to teach the Mother Tongue :). Having said this, if the management wants employees to understand and act on certain principles like leadership, then the leadership itself has to preach for it. 

The Leader of "OPPOSITION"

The Name has it all .... Generally people prefer to name their child with a successful personality. Like, Hindu parent prefers a name like 'RAM', 'Mahesh', 'Gautam' etc. A Muslim prefers 'Abdul', 'Husain','Nagama' etc. A follower of Christ chooses something from his/her background like 'George', 'Peter'. Even people name their business in similar fashion. If not by the name of famous personality, then by a  name that at least has a positive meaning.

With this assumption in mind, I always wonder, why do we call the second most preferred party leader in the democracy as Leader of "Opposition". Due to some minor differences in the ideology or agenda, the voters have elected one (or conglomeration) party over the other. What it means to me is that one thought stream is more preferred to serve the country than the other. Assuming all of them are going to work towards betterment of the countrymen in right sense, they still differ in their way of work. And we, as voters have chosen one of them saying "Lets give a chance to this group of policy makers'.

The typical psychological reason behind naming the loved ones (Child / Business) with the name indicating success / prosperity is the expectation that the name will bring it's good qualities along with it and the named one would be benefited by it's virtue.

Under the light of this assumption, I dont see any space for the word 'OPPOSITION'. Rather we have one additional stream of thoughts sitting along with the ruling one. So what do we exactly expect from the Leader of Opposition. Is it that the person sitting on that seat is always opposing the cause... be it right or wrong ?

Or do we expect him to behave in a manner that the name Opposition brings to him by virtue ?

If we go by wikipedia the same position is defined as :

The Leader of the Opposition is a title traditionally held by the leader of the largest party not in government

In US Politics it is referred to as a 'Minority Leader'. It seems quite sober than the 'Leader of Opposition'.

People name their loved ones with the Name indicating something positive... Be it myth or be it belief. If it is true.... then isnt it that the failure of our politics because of weak opposition is routed in its name itself ?

Who moved my Cheese

The first time I read the famous book 'Who Moved My Cheese' was, when I was in high school. I got a chance to read it once again just after a completion of one year of my professional life. I appreciated it a little more when I read it the second time. There were several reasons why I was impressed the second time, but the most vital of them was the changing global scenario and changes in my personal life.

Although the book is more about accepting the 'CHANGE', it gives something more than just ability to adapt. I wonder exactly when does this word 'Adapt' suits someone??? Generally by definition we take for granted that the person who is being relocated should adapt to the new environment. That is true... No doubt ! But not entirely true. Along with the migrated person the natives also have to adapt to the changes brought by such immigrants. 

Be it the issue of American Jobs being lost to non-Americans, or be it the problem of Mumbai-Marathi and Non Maharashtrians. The question always remains that how much are we ready to change. The common factor between both the problems quoted above is the 'Tug of War' for 'Bread and Butter'. The migration has pushed the natives to share their opportunities with immigrants. People make it or rather take it more as a prestige issue than conglomeration. 

The CHANGE itself is not a black and white thing, it does not have the exact stable equilibrium. Even though  both the sides are ready to change, the equilibrium does not lie exactly in the center. And thats why either of the parties feel the fear of loosing. We can take the same example quoted above for further discussion. If we assume the rope as a symbol of opportunity in the game of tug of war, the aim of both the teams is to pull the rope on their own side. The team need not to pull the entire length of the rope on its side, but certain piece of rope pulled would be enough to decide the winner. The only ideal case would be the ideal rope which would keep on extending with application of force. This way no team will feel the fear of loosing, but instead each team can enjoy the fun of pulling. 

Ha ha ha .... This is not a blog to teach the game of tug of war... indeed. But the imaginary rope that keeps on extending can reflect the situation where the opportunities keep on growing with increased amount of market force. ... Again this is an imaginary situation.

I don't want to indicate here any specific winner amongst the immigrants and natives. What I want to indicate is just  that we are facing a situation where we have to change as a immigrant or as a native, whatever be it. This forum might be too small to conclude on these problems but a good stage to start thinking on it....

As it is well said 'Change is the only constant thing in the World'. So lets find our cheese or make one.    

Compensation and the Employee

'Money Matters'! Money is something that definitely attracts the common people. This is definitely true but we really need to evaluate whether or not the monetary stimulus can work for a long time to keep employee motivated.

I think the productivity of the employee depends on how much he or she loves or likes the job individually. This means how much he or she is satisfied with the job. According to my observation the satisfaction comes from three distinct aspects of the job : Compensation, Appreciation and Passion. If either of these three are not satisfied the employee eventually feels dissatisfaction and starts thinking for a new opportunity. Lack of either of these three aspects makes the employee less committed to his or her job and brings down the productivity.

Compensation, it is one but still important factor of the job satisfaction. Very high level of appreciation and passion towards work may not work for a long time if the compensation is typically very low. Compensation is something we can treat as a tangible and countable thing out of these three. Hence the compensation can be measured but not the rest of the two. Again appreciation and work passion becomes more subjective and can change person to person. But compensation is something that helps the employee to satisfy the individual and family needs.

More compensation in turn means many of these needs are satisfied and still there is a room for huge saving. Satisfaction of the basic needs of family and increased saving helps in reducing the worry of basic necessities required for living. This may help the employee to focus more on the work and stop thinking about meeting the both ends.

Definitely it seems that the above stated formula is going to work so far. But the human mind is really difficult. Once the basic needs are met it starts creating new necessities. The employee starts living the better life style after the increased compensation. But this life style once habituated, the employee starts looking forward to more advanced life style and this brings need of more and more money. This is same as the story of two workers. One earns $100 a day and spends the entire amount. Where as the second worker earns $1000 a day and spends the whole $1000 in a day. At the end of the day both of them have balance as ZERO. Just the difference is one has SMALL ZERO and the other has LARGE ZERO. In the same way after some time the employee starts seeking more money to fulfill his/her desire and more ambitious lifestyle. If continued this way the organization might be in a trouble at later point of time.

As we discussed about compensation, in a same way even if there is passion and high compensation paid but if there is lack of appreciation, brings down the employee moral. This phenomenon is typically observed in today's IT organizations and Financial Institutes. In spite of high compensation and passion towards the work the employee complain about the work load and work culture or at least about lack of appreciation about their work. Similar case happens when there is better compensation and appreciation but the individual does not have passion towards the work. The lack of passion means either the employee does not have the enough skill set to perform the job and hence feeling devastated. Or on the other hand the employee does not like the job at all. This again brings down the productivity.

Hence I believe that the right combination of Compensation, Appreciation and Passion towards work will bring the employee satisfaction. And the increased satisfaction would bring the increased productivity.

Get Set Go...

I have started blogging after a long period and deep thinking for around 2 years.

Finally !!! 'Its better late than never'

I had created this blog couple of years ago but could not find anything as such to start. So I am not sure whether or not it makes any SENSE with respect to its' original title. Isn't it a bit controversial? And thats what drives me to think about it more and more.

We find many things happening around us everyday. Whether or not we have any relation to those events, but still we have an opinion to it. Many times we feel that the things are not going well.... just because of lack of sensibility and sensitivity to the issue.

I entirely agree that the perspectives and opinion differ person to person but I am just trying to put my thoughts together through this blog.

We have five senses to interact with this world, through which we gather tremendous amount of information about the world... and attach our view to it.

This blog is a journey to explore one more sense a 'Sensible Sense' to reply to the world.

Lets starts the journey within ....