Don’t let the king doze off....

Amadeus is a masterpiece movie based on the story of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart which went on to bag eight Oscars. In this movie, Saliery is the court composer of Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II. Mozart arrives at Vienna and Saliery got to observe the unbelievable talent of young Mozart which was almost like ‘god expressing himself’ through Mozart.

Saliery being an outstanding musician himself realised the true potential of Mozart. But he could not accept the fact that God chose an irreverent and lewd kid to deliver such heavenly music.

Mozart was on the go. He was bringing out master pieces one after the other and compared to the genius that he was, the other musicians of the time including Saliery looked pale and mediocre. Many could not stand this ignominy and were filled with jealousy. They were looking for ways to arrest the meteoric ascent of Mozart.

Mozart was once performing his latest compositions to an audience which included the king. It was a brilliant piece. Although the king always believed that he was a connoisseur of music and he was a mentor of music and musicians, he had no natural taste or ability to recognize novel innovations.

As the performance proceeded, the king nodded, sort of fell asleep. You should have seen the face of the fellow musicians. They mood changed from melancholy to ecstasy.

Why? The King was nodding off!

This means that there is no royal endorsement for the new masterpiece. The whisper campaign was on, in full swing. That was the beginning of the end for Mozart...

The moral of the story; don’t let the king fall asleep.

Why? If you are not yet a celebrity, you need endorsement because many people follow only what has been endorsed by the ‘knowledgeable’

I read about an experiment by Washington Post as a as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. They got Joshua Bell, one of the best musicians in the world to play incognito some of the most intricate pieces ever written with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars at a metro station at Washington DC. In the few hours he played, nobody really bothered and he managed a collection of $ 32. Two days before his performance in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theatre in Boston and the seats averaged $100! (Watch the video)



The recognition, support and resource allocations are only for what the big boss appears to be interested in.

This happens to in both government and in corporate. The short cut to please the big man is what you learn in your nursery class

“Yes Sir, Yes Sir, Three Bags Full."

With such sycophancy among the courtesans you sure can't let the king doze off.

That was a cynical way of looking at the real world. There is no point in being cynical. The practical question is how do we use this phenomenon to work for you?

Get you Packaging and Endorsement right!

Then the next big challenge is to get the right endorsement from relevant people. Let them buy in your ideas and endorse it. For that you have to make it relevant for them. (For a survival kit, take a look at “Hitchhiker’s guide to corporate galaxy Part 1
and Part 2)

If you think that mere brilliance of your idea or product will get due acceptance, you are wrong.

The world we live in is a world of exploding options. So you need smart strategies to catch and retain attention. (Don’t forget that the underlying idea/ product will have to be good to avoid it turning out to be fad)

C’est la Vie!!

Nice stuff on emerging trends in mobile tech..

Mary Meeker Managing Director of Morgan Stanly made and interesting presentation at web 2.0 summit on emerging trends in Mobile, internet and the strides being made by iPhone.
Take a look at the presentation. Worth spending few minutes to see a perspective on how the world of communication is changing.

Mary Meeker 2009 Web 2.0 Summit Presentation

View more documents from ahawkinson.

Organisational Rigor Mortis

The foundation of this posting is an interesting story that has been circulating in the net. It gives wonderful insight into one of the major contributors of organisational decay.

The story is like this. In an experimental study in behaviour, four chimps were put in a large cage and a banana with a live-wire around was hung from the ceiling. If any chimp tried to pull out the banana it would get an electric shock. The chimps tried to touch the banana and realised the danger soon and eventually they learned to keep away from the banana.

Then the researchers stopped the electrical supply to the wire around the banana. Still none of the monkeys touched it. The researchers removed one chimp from the group and introduced a new one to the cage. When the new arrival tried to touch the banana the others stopped him from doing so. Eventually, one by one all the original four chimps who have experienced electrical shock were replaced with four chimps who have never experienced it. But still none touched the banana.

Why? Because “That is how the system works”

We see such rigidity around us very often. Organisations establish a number of processes and practices in certain context. Over a period of time, the context changes but the processes remain as in the Brazilian saying “the winning team doesn’t change”.

This, instead of supporting discipline, then encourages bureaucratic rituals and ‘clerks’ come to prominence instead of business leaders; sort of organisational rigor mortis.

New ideas don’t get support or encouragement and risk avoidance becomes the norm. Everything will have to be cleared by the legal department, which itself is not a bad idea. But often it degenerates to a stage where entrepreneurship and risk taking gets killed and mediocrity and CYA policies become the norm.

Innovations are not encouraged but maintenance becomes the key. People get fixed instead of problems getting fixed.

Employees with energy and enthusiasm get stifled and leave and paper-pushers tend to rule the roost. Splitting hair on provisions of staff rules gets more attention than the customer grievance.

Corporate bureaucracy "would be top on the list of sucking the life force out of [workers], making them feel helpless," says Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon strip. It contributes to the loss of "any sense of self-worth or initiative [employees] have and turns them into weasels," he says. [1]

Such inhibiting bureaucracy eventually could zap the vitality of the organisations and could lead to decay and death. The primary challenge for any leader would be how to prevent this decay.

It does not mean laissez faire cowboy style management. Systems and Procedures form the steel frame on which the organisation can sustain growth. However it is like having a barking dog as a guard dog at home. But if the dog falls in love with its own barking and start barking for the sake of barking, the dog ceases to have value as a guard dog.

And that is the balance we need to constantly strive for...

[1] How to bend the rules of corporate bureaucracy, Denise Kersten, USATODAY.com

Make Love Not War

Any society that consists of people who care only for their self interest is a society that is drifting towards chaos and disorder. It is almost natural for most societies to move in this direction. However, there are two factors that can moderate or control this natural degeneration. First is the extent to which balanced decisions are taken when there is a conflict between private agenda and social responsibility. The second factor is the extent to which affirmative actions are taken even when there is no individual benefit and/or there is individual cost.

I have always wondered what can motivate a utility maximising rational human being to socially responsible behaviour There are many theories that I have heard. What gave me an idea was the feeling that I saw in my daughter towards all animals.

I love animals too. Any cute dog or cat does stir up strong affection. The dogs I own also evoke similar feeling. But the stray in the street never induced any such feelings. But when I go out for a walk with my daughter any animal that we see on the road seems to evoke same affectionate response from her. However haggard, sick or full of wounds, bruises and putrefying sores the dog is, my daughter will point out to me “dad look at that dog, isn’t he cute?”

This used to be the case when she was a little child, and even now although she is a teenager. This is true love.

Love is one word people of all nationality, religion, cast, creed and even age know of. But very often the love that we practice is the love that is conditional or limited; conditional upon what you do for me or limited to my family, friends, cast or sect. This is the love that we often see and experience.

The love that will steer a man or woman towards selfless action is the love that is the pure, unlimited and unconditional love for every human being. It is “an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being”.

It is one of the guiding principles of almost all religions; an imploration to “love thy neighbour as yourself”

It is the only sentiment that can make you think again (at least once a while) when you throw litter out of your window, when you break all rules as you drive along, when you cheat on your tax with impunity, when you fan communal hatred through your actions and inactions, when you destroy public property, when you don’t do your bit to reduce pollution and atmospheric degradation, when you support arms race and when you implement policies that short-shift your customers and so on and so forth.

That is why “Make Love Not War” is truly a timeless slogan.

Don’t let that feeling die.Spend a little bit of time teaching this to your little children.

Now close your eyes and listen to “Make Love Not War” by John Lennon

A Moral Dilemma

One of my friends recently forwarded to me an interesting mail, which in a striking fashion highlighted the conflicts we face when we make decisions that involve other people. I have made it the anchor of this post.

The story is as follows. A group of children was playing near a two line railway tracks; one still in use while the other not used. Only one child played on the disused track, the rest on the operational track.

The train is coming, and you are just beside the track interchange. You can make the train change its course to the disused track and save most of the kids. However, that would also mean the lone child playing by the disused track would be sacrificed. Or would you rather let the train go its way?

Let's take a pause to think what kind of decision we could make...

Most people might choose to divert the course of the train, and sacrifice only one child. You might think the same way, I guess. To save most of the children at the expense of only one child is the rational decision most people would make, morally and emotionally. But, have you ever thought that the child who chose to play on the disused track had in fact made the right decision to play at a safe place?

Nevertheless, he had to be sacrificed because of his ignorant friends who chose to play where the danger was. This kind of dilemma happens around us every day. In the office, community, in politics and especially in a democratic society where the minority is often sacrificed for the interest of the majority, no matter how foolish or ignorant the majority are, and how farsighted and knowledgeable the minority are. The child who chose not to play with the rest on the operational track was sidelined. And in the case he was sacrificed, no one would shed a tear for him.

The great critic Leo Velski Julian who told the story said he would not try to change the course of the train because he believed that the kids playing on the operational track should have known very well that track was still in use, and that they should have run away when they heard the train's siren. If the train was diverted, that lone child would definitely die because he never thought the train could come over to that track! Moreover, that track was not in use probably because it was not safe. If the train was diverted to the track, we could put the lives of all passengers on board at stake! And in your attempt to save a few kids by sacrificing one child, you might end up sacrificing hundreds of people to save these few kids.

We face such situations very often in our life. The options may not be as striking as in the above story; but could be as conflicting.

Last week my wife was walking out of her office and at the junction there was an assembly of people waiting to listen to a political leader. There were many chairs kept at the side of the road. The speaker of the day welcomed all those who were walking along and requested them to take the chairs, place them on the road and sit down comfortably. He pointed out that even if it blocked the road, it was OK or rather better as it demonstrated his party’s strength.

Such behaviour with little regard to the society at large has become an acceptable practice today. These are social dilemmas that have no technical solution other than the value system that generally drives a significant majority. Building mechanisms that enables social audits and transparency in public administration would go a long way in supporting this.

However to build and sustain such a society we need to build healthy values right from childhood. Our education system will have to incorporate such value education a more important component of the syllabus. In addition to making this a part of the syllabus we also will have to develop imaginative ways of inculcating this in the young minds. But then that is the challenge our education system faces in all streams of education and which needs our top attention