What part of NO don't you understand?

Everybody has their own ways of classifying and typifying people. In my case, my taxonomy would depend mostly on the subject at hand and somewhat on my mood. When it comes to responding to a given question or proposition or point of view, I find that people generally fit into two broad stereotypes (or a third narrow one) - those who have difficulty in clearly and openly agreeing (let's call them the natural nay-sayers), and those who have difficulty in clearly and openly disagreeing (the natural yea-sayers). The third category consists of those mature, evolved, unflinching individuals who agree with what they agree with and disagree with what they disagree with, and stay that way. (Sometimes I wish I could put myself in this class.) But since this is a very thin slice of humanity, and in any case a bunch of folks who don't seem to be plagued with issues such as doubt, uncertainty, paradox, etc., and who don't feel the heat of social or economic or political pressure, we would do well to leave them alone.

Natural nay-sayers tend to start their responses with a No, even when they agree with the given proposition. Quite often you'd find them shaking their heads in dissent even before you've finished saying your piece. And quite often, you'd find that in the final analysis, they're in agreement with you. I am constantly amused by the typical "No, I agree with you" response - the hallmark of this type. Some natural nay-sayers however are not honest enough to admit that they agree. They start with a No, which happens to be the typical nay-sayer's favourite word, and proceed to give you their opinion which, it turns out, is more or less the same; but they will not accept that it is essentially similar to (or at least somewhat aligned with) what you just said (or at least some parts of it). In some cases, it may be the overwhelming persuasiveness of your argument that renders them unable to articulate that one vital thought that could establish their position of difference. So they know they disagree but can't cleary say where or why. But in most cases, I suspect, it is more likely to be a reluctance to accept something as given - even if they agree with parts of it - unless it is regurgitated and cast in their own unique style of expression (by which time it has become a different proposition). An extreme reaction of this sub-type is to say exactly what you said, completely ignoring the fact that you said it first, and pretend that you never did or they never heard it. So it's their idea now and they own the IPR on it. On the whole, the good thing about people of this type is that they leave you with little ambiguity - you more or less know what to expect: they've already voiced their disagreement and as your dialogue with them progresses, things can only get better.

Natural yea-sayers are, by far, more complex creatures, and in dealing with them things may not turn out the way you'd expect, going by their intial reaction. Their first response is to agree (usually they are nodding their heads in assent right through, while you talk) regardless of what they really feel or think. There could be numerous reasons (and, accordingly, sub-types) behind such immediate affirmation. There's of course the typical Sycophant. And the typical Diplomat. There's also the typical Eternal Optimist who'd agree with anyone and anything purely out of a feeling of bonhomie and good cheer towards all of mankind. Then there're those who secretly disagree but generally tend to shy away from confrontation, those who get easily swayed by forceful rhetoric and/or the loudest voice and/or the most powerful presence around, and those who don't have a mind of their own to begin with.

There are several ways of saying No, including the one that starts with a Yes. Some years ago I had a T shirt that said "What part of NO don't you understand?" and I used to think about that sometimes. I guess I have my answer now ... it's the part that is actually a YES. Someone needs to spell it out, if it has to be understood. Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that the best way is to look for areas of agreement first - start with an up-front Yes (if you like, qualify it with relevant conditions and provisions), before opening out the areas of difference. And even there, in that, seek resolution by way of a win for both sides. Peaceful dialogue, focus on real issues and common goals is by far the best way forward. Some people call this looking for the silver lining. We need this now, very badly.

4 P's - my 2 bits

When it comes to the business of life and equally, the life of businesses, here're my 4 P's - Purpose, Profit, Principles and Pride. Over the last couple of decades I've come across a wide variety of organisations (and people), who would most likely rank these 4 P's differently from the next guy. For the more numerically inclined, there're 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24 ways in which one could rank them. Of course, there could be some organisations (or people) who'd want to drop one or more of those P's completely, resulting in a much larger set of possibilities. I am not, at this point, going to get into the academics of permutations and combinations, because that's not what this is about. (However, math enthusiasts and other geeks should feel free to do so and knock themselves out.)

Purpose, according to me, is fundamental to everything. An enlightened soul once said "Find Purpose - the means will follow". The discovery (or, in some cases, invention) of Purpose clarifies our raison d'être. It would be an interesting experiment to randomly poll people (or organisations) to find out if they are clear about their purpose. I expect that most responses would be in the affirmative, though I suspect that most of those claims would be shallow. Few have Purpose, and of the ones who purport to have Purpose, even fewer demonstrate purposefulness in what they do. While several might actually put Profit before Purpose, few would honestly admit to it - the vast majority spends considerable time effort and money to get a glossy cover that talks about all the right things: vision, mission, blah blah ... words on a web-site or corporate brochure or presentation, cleverly crafted by a PR / ad agency or perhaps internal creative talent. Then there are those who would assert that their Purpose, indeed, is Profit!

Profit is not a bad thing, though some idealists might tend to think so. It is what keeps us alive. If Purpose gives us a reason to exist, Profit enables us to stay alive. And healthy. Without Profit (OK, excess of income over expenditure - not-for-profit organisations should be happy with that), you cannot continue to serve your Purpose. Selflessness requires at least this much of selfishness - sustenance of the health and well-being of the selfless. But Profit without Principles? Not a good idea. Principles without Purpose? I don't see the sense in that. Principles guide where the Profit motive may lead astray. Sometimes, Principles guide where even Purpose may lead astray. I would venture to say that Principles form the foundation for a civilised society. This could however be taken to an extreme - the "I will break but not bend" type of adherence to Principles. I haven't come across as many ultra-highly principled organisations as I have people. Somehow most such individuals end up being very bitter, while putting up a brave front and even taking Pride in their uncomprising position. And, in my scheme of ranking, Pride is the last P. There's arrogance, there's ego, there's pride and there's hubris. Frankly, I think it's a good thing to take Pride in who you are, what you do, how you do it and why. But there's no place in business (or social) life for ego and arrogance. And certainly none for hubris.

Which brings me to the background to this blog entry. I have been encountering so much ego these days - at work and also at play, that it is frustrating. Ego is not good for business! Somehow, several people don't get it. Ego threatens Purpose, Profit as well as Principle. I'm OK with Pride - in a larger, more abstract and more mature sense. In fact I believe it's a good thing for business. But not ego. A supercilious or a patronising attitude drives away customers as well as suppliers, and erodes goodwill with all other publics an enterprise deals with. It is amazing how every little interaction provides a potential window for any of this to manifest itself. And how the more successful ones fall prey to ego, which they mistake to be Pride. Perhaps this sounds paradoxical, but I'm an advocate for Pride without ego - a Pride based on humility. And proud of it!

Choice vs. Chance II - The Return of Choice

When I wrote my last blog entry on Monday (with several references to TV channels and choices), little did I know that later, the same evening, we would be left with just 2 channels to watch. What were the chances of such a thing happening?

That was also the day the shehnai maestro Bismallah Khan passed away, and both channels were broadcasting content on him, around the time I hit the box. I had a choice, of course, which was one of the two channels or no TV at all. As a tribute to the great musician, I watched the documentary on his life, being aired on one of them. And I couldn't help thinking about the fact that I was watching an NFDC documentary. On DD. And my choice was no TV at all. Gosh this was like going back to the future!

Then yesterday on one of the two channels there was this heated debate on the Cable TV censorship issue, and I was a mute witness to the emergence of the moral police that is one day going to control all entertainment and related content created, distributed and consumed in this country. Their approach is simple - instead of regulating consumption of so-called adult content at the user end (which is what is done in the more mature markets), they want to regulate its dissemination. And maybe even its creation. They seem to take the view that content which, to their minds, is of a lascivious and prurient nature, should not exist at all. That way, it can neither be distributed nor consumed. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The evil here, of course, is sex. I am not going to devote this blog entry to the issue of "Licensing the Licentious". I could rave, rant and vent on this subject but I don't even know where to start. I'm quite sure other, more ardent bloggers are at it while I write this. But I have given up, till further notice. I just hope that the focus of public interest litigation shifts to some REAL issues which have some REAL impact on the economy and the quality of life. Such as Corruption. Such as Crime. Such as Education. Such as Healthcare.

A small side-bar comment - the good people who were participating in this debate were doing so in at least 3 different languages. There were times when I heard them use English words that sounded like composites of two or three other words, such as conversion and convergence (in the context of technology, media and communications coming together), conscious(-ness) and conscience (in the context of "our" morality, "our" culture and "our" sense of social propriety), liberalisation and liberalism and liberation (in the context of governance and regulation). This last one was a gem and got me thinking about the etymology of these words. Of course, most of it is attributed to wrong pronunciation by folks who are more articulate in some other language. But I found it interesting to consider the possibility that some new concepts could be spawned by the serendipitious fusion of like-sounding and similar-yet-different-meaning words.

Anyway, it was nice to wake up this morning and learn that Cable was back! Apparently it was back last night, and my kids were able to catch a few snatches of their cartoon shows before they went back to bed. Hurray! Choices at last!

Monday Morning Musings: Choice vs. Chance

One of the key characteristics of an individualistic, consumerist society (which is now, since the decline of communism and other alternative models, accepted as the established world order), is freedom of choice. Whether it is the shampoo you use, the telecom provider you select to keep you connected, or your career, you have a choice. And the fact that you have a choice is a big thing. It is an intrinsic property of individualism, celebrated throughout the world and zealously guarded by the keepers of capitalistic faith. The TV remote is the ultimate weapon, and channel surfing the most popular pre-occupation among viewers. Sometimes I spend more time doing that than actually watching any specific channel. I guess I could say - to surf hopefully is a better thing than to watch, to paraphrase an old adage.

For a guy like me who grew up in a time of scarcity (when ration cards were actually used for the purpose they were created) in a world where you had precisely one TV channel, the abundance of options available today is mind boggling and almost scary. It has enriched my life, yes. But it has also made my life far more complex. The anxiety of making a choice, which obviously never existed when you had none to make, is sometimes heightened to a new kind of neurosis - the fear of missing out on a better life. What am I giving up when I commit to a choice I am making? Was there a chance for a better life, in some of those other options I rejected?

In my life, I have spent several hours, days even, pondering the what-if's behind each important decision I took. And that has applied to past decisions as much as decisions on hand at present. When the agonising over the what-ifs reaches delirious heights, I slip into an imaginary world ... where I am immortal, can go back in time, and can therefore traverse the multitudes of paths my life would have taken for each choice I could make. This flight of fantasy can get more complex if one were to consider the fact that each of those choices changes the chooser, and in order to return to the point when the choice was first exercised, you have to un-live the segment of your life that corresponded with the choice you made and unbecome what you became over that time frame.

Some people are lucky - they don't need to get into a sci-fi world; they can actually 'see' life as it evolves further downstream, for each choice waiting to be made. As a strategy consultant (a hat I sometimes wore), I used to do something called scenario envisioning for my clients, dealing with multiple possible scenarios of which one may be picked as a desirable end-state - but these are consciously and rationally constructed models, carefully built with mathematical precision based on reliable information and a dash of creative imagination about the future. Forced insights leading to an intellectually predicated forecast. Some people do this intuitively, and surf through those scenarios as though they were TV channels.

But the world we live in is chaotic. How accurately can one predict the future? Regardless of whether you take an analytical approach to project the future based on mathematical models crunched by a supercomputer, or a mystical one to divine what is foretold by the stars or the lines on your palm, there's always the possibility that it may not happen. That something else, altogether different, and unforseeen, might instead. That's where chance plays its mysterious role. Surprised or shocked, you are reminded yet again, that things need not turn out the way you thought they would. Or should. In fact what eventually happens may not even be in the same ball-park as what you had imagined or gambled on. The future is increasingly getting to be more and more different from the past, but at the same time, the more things change the more they remain the same. And that's the paradox of choice and chance.

When Launchcast first launched many years ago (it's now a yahoo music service) I was struck by the peculiar blend of chance and choice this product represented. What they offered was what I'd like to call 'programmed serendipity'. Spell out your choices (by picking and rating genres, bands / artists, albums, songs ...) and it will play them to you by chance. No, this is not the same as the shuffle option on your CD changer. This is more like a radio station. Launchcast could even bring you tracks you haven't heard, but might like. Because the track has features that you approve of (e.g., fav. artists). Or because others who have similar taste as you, have liked it. So you can enjoy the unpredictability of what will play next (you don't get that pleasure when you play your own music, even with random play), but be reasonably sure that it will be suited to your taste.

Which leads me to the uncanny thing that happened this morning, that inspired me to write this blog entry. I was listening to a CD and then switched to FM ... only to hear the same track again! Here's my take-away from this - there's a chance that the choice you make may turn out to be no different from what would have been had you left it to chance. But does that mean that you don't make choices? Not a chance!

Universal Truths

Last month I ordered some music CDs from a web-site. Nothing unusual or high-tech about that - these days one can do those things as a part of regular life, without being astonished at where we've reached in the pursuit of development and happiness as the 'civilised world' understands it. But there was something quite amazing about this particular instance, when I reflected a bit about it this morning.

The web-site I ordered from (www.musicabona.com) is an e-commerce extension of a music shop based in Prague in the Czech republic, and boasts a fine collection of Czech and Moravian folk music, among other genres. One of the CDs I got, is called "Ensemble Ambrosius - The Zappa Album", recorded by a Finnish band in Helsinki as a tribute to Frank Zappa. The instruments used are from the Baroque period (e.g., harpsichord, archlute, dulcimer, etc., some of which might be nearing extinction, in this techno age) and the content is all original Zappa compositions.

And this is what I was struck by while listening to it in my car this morning...

Here's a music aficionado from Mumbai, India who ordered from a Czech web-site, a recording of music originally composed by an irreverent, rebellious, genre-defying Californian, arranged for and played on archaic instruments by a bunch of young Finnish fans of his from Helsinki. Frankly, I was zapped, when I thought about it that way.

For those of my friends who are not familiar with Frank Zappa ... he's the sort of chap who'd define a composer as "... a guy who goes around forcing his will on unsuspecting air molecules, often with the assistance of unsuspecting musicians." May his soul rest in peace.

Some truths are truly universal. Music is one of them.