We often face situations in which we have to give advice to others; it could to our friends, relatives, colleagues or professional associates. Sometimes it is free advice because we want to help or sometimes it is a part of our professional duty.
We undertake this role with varying degrees of involvement. The stronger our bond with the other person and/or stronger our concern and interest (sometimes private agenda) in the matter under consideration, the higher would be our involvement.
However, the one thing we often forget is that, when we give advice our role is just that; to give advice and present a strong supporting rationale behind our advice. Then we should to leave it to the other person to take his call.
But what often happens is that once we give our advice, we develop certain expectations. Expectation about acknowledgment of our contribution, expectation about the credit for our advice or expectation about the pleasure of seeing the advice being given heed to. We want to hear them exclaiming “what an idea sirjee” like the idea cellular advertisement. If none of these happens we feel disappointed. We may also get upset and irritated. In some extremes, the irritation starts showing in the way we deal with that person. Very often we would refuse to give any further advice.
In such situations, we often end up being the loser in the whole transaction, because it has made us unhappy. A better idea will be to treat this process as a learning exercise. The other person has presented us with a problem and we got an opportunity to study it without being affected by it, see it in a different perspective and make a valid contribution. Take it as a case study and see how it adds value to us.
If the other person follows our advice, we get a chance to test our hypothesis or theory or strategy. If he doesn't, and follows another course, then also we get a chance to learn. If it turns out well, we learn a new way of approaching the problem. If not, we may get a chance to do an autopsy and learn what not to do. Itcould also teach us something about why the other person did not accept our advice. May be he got a better advice. May be when all factors were considered he had to take a different course of action. May be our advice was not good enough. May be we could not give enough confidence to the other person. May be he is not so bright, may be he has some other agenda!
We looked at how to give advice. Now, let us also take a look at how to take advice. There are times when we get advice from another person. Sometimes we may actually pay somebody to get an advice.
Even here we may fall in the trap of proving our point or feeling satisfied by comparing with other person to see how smart we are. Here again it is better to take the opportunity to listen and learn.
We should present our problem/ concern/ issue to the other person whom we have requested for an advice. Then we should let him, rather make him speak. There is no point in trying to prove to the other person our smartness or biasing his thoughts. Listen. I know a person who call experts to his office after paying them a fee and then spend the whole time propounding his ideas. There no point in being insecure or insensitive.
We should also be able to look at the advice given to us with an open mind, and evaluate it in its own merit. At this point we should avoid being clouded by our biases, fears and preferences. Only then can we take the full benefit of the advice. The higher we go up in our career or more power is associated with our position higher the risk of falling into this trap.
I don’t deny some advice is not worth pursuing. Finally it is our call any way.
“Advice is seldom welcome, and those who need it the most, like it the least.” Lord Chesterfield
Monday, May 31, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
To be or not to be –IV: Challenges of Regulation
I remember the two bullies who studied with me in high school. They intimidated poor souls like me quite often; had no shame in forcefully taking nice goodies from our lunch boxes, flick our chocolates, force us to let them copy from our assignments and what not. Absolute rascals; but they were good athletes. They bought honour to the school in every district and state championships and so they were darlings of the faculty. Every once in a while they got caught for their transgressions; will get few raps on the knuckles, may be few days of suspension and then they were back in action. I am sure many of you would have had similar experiences.
I remembered these bullies when I was reading comments by Hank Paulson (US treasury secretary July 2006- Jan 2009) in 2006. “If you look at the recent history, there is a disturbance in the capital market every four to eight years; savings and loan crisis in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, the bond market blow up of 1994 and the crisis that began in Asia in 1997 and continued with Russia’s default on its debt in 1998. I was convinced that we were due for another disruption” (Referred in his book “On the brink”). He was proved right within few months.
The same book also refers to a remark by John Mack CEO of Morgan Stanley in 2008 on the cause of the melt down. “Greed, leverage and lax investor standards; we took conditions for granted and we as an industry lost discipline”
This is not just the cause of 2008 melt down; it is the cause of many melt downs. Such behaviour appears to be normal in this line of business. Take a look the civil case filed by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Goldman Sachs in April 2010 charging ‘fraudulent misconduct’. This is not just an isolated incident as we can see from the following.
“NASD fines Citi, Merrill, Morgan Stanley $250,000 each” The America's Intelligence Wire July 19, 2004” (i)
“On June 6, 2007, the NASD announced more than $15 million in fines and restitution against Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., to settle charges related to misleading documents and inadequate disclosure in retirement seminars and meetings for BellSouth Corp. employees in North Carolina and South Carolina.” (ii)
“Merrill Lynch & Company said yesterday that it would pay $100 million in penalties to New York and other states and change the way it pays stock analysts to end an investigation that its chairman said had damaged the firm's reputation. “ (iii)
Citigroup Inc. agreed to pay a $70 million fine for practices in its Baltimore consumer finance unit, including raising the cost of loans to poor and credit-starved customers by requiring them to have unnecessary cosigners” (iv)
“Morgan Stanley, the second-largest U.S. securities firm by market value, was fined $10 million by the Securities and Exchange Commission because it failed to guard against insider trading for at least eight years. The fine was the biggest ever for a violation of surveillance rule” (v)
These are just a few samples. Do a Google search with the word ‘fine’ along with the name of any of the large investment banker; you will be surprised at the frequency of serious transgressions which are not just fines on technical violation but fines on substantive charges. We will wonder aloud “Will we ever learn?”
Compounding such practices is the frequent roll out of complex financial products which are often too complex for the investors to understand. Hank Paulson’s (who has been the CEO of Goldman Sachs before taking over as the Treasury Secretary) reference on the proliferation of product innovation is quite blunt on this. “In theory this was all to the good. But there was a dark side. The market became opaque as structured products grew increasingly complex and difficult to understand even for sophisticated investors”
This is why we need innovative regulation to match with the innovations in market place. In his blog post on regulating the new financial sector, Prof. Willam Buiter has given a very interesting suggestion “the same rigour used by US FDA for pharma and medical products should be insisted for introduction of financial products to broader market does not look out of place in the context of the recent history”.
We also need to think innovation in the checks and balances that we build in the system. Quoting Paulson again; “The regulatory structure, organised around traditional business lines had not begun to keep up with the evolution of the markets”.... it had led to counterproductive competition among regulators, wasteful duplication in some areas and gaping holes in others”
We in India have few important lessons to learn from all these.
To prevent run-away innovation that is rash and irresponsible, we need to put in place the right regulatory establishment to avoid the same kind of mistakes that has been laid bare in front of us. If we expect responsible behaviour and self regulation collectively from the guys running financial markets we are asking too much. We have not seen such industry wide responsible behaviour anywhere in the world.
Regulation does not mean micro-management of day-to-day functioning. Regulator’s role is to set the rules of the game and keep a watch whether the players are playing as per the rules. He also has to keep a look at the impact of changing structure of the game and modify the rules. If I give an example, the rules of T20 is not exactly the same as in the case of test cricket though both are cricket. To make this possible the regulators will have to be able to attract people who have the right experience, the right domain knowledge and most importantly the right attitude who can establish appropriate processes and use the modern technology tools and match or better industry strengths. This is the challenge of governance.
One of the major suggestions on regulation we often hear is to curtail all innovations; I don’t agree with this. We have enormous potential for modernising the markets with innovative products. If we say that we will be insulated from the turmoil on account of lack of market sophistication, we are not being very bright. It is like saying that I never fell because I never rode. A sophisticated market is a prerequisite for growth. In this journey we will make mistakes; and these mistakes will trigger better controls and that is the democratic process of growth. To go into hibernation is not the solution. Look at our favourite sport, cricket; from leisurely five day test matches we have progressed to one day internationals and now to 20 over matches keeping pace with our life. Notwithstanding, the controversy of IPL, the innovations have only improved the game on multiple dimensions.
“ We should and can have a structure that is designed for the world we live in, one that is more flexible, one that can better adapt to change, one that will allow us to more effectively deal with the inevitable market disruptions and one that will better protect investors and consumers.” Hank Paulson
(i) http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22046900_ITM
(ii) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup
(iii) May 2002, New York times http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/22/business/100-million-fine-for-merrill-lynch.html
(iv) Washington Post, 2004
(v) Bloomberg 2006
I remembered these bullies when I was reading comments by Hank Paulson (US treasury secretary July 2006- Jan 2009) in 2006. “If you look at the recent history, there is a disturbance in the capital market every four to eight years; savings and loan crisis in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, the bond market blow up of 1994 and the crisis that began in Asia in 1997 and continued with Russia’s default on its debt in 1998. I was convinced that we were due for another disruption” (Referred in his book “On the brink”). He was proved right within few months.
The same book also refers to a remark by John Mack CEO of Morgan Stanley in 2008 on the cause of the melt down. “Greed, leverage and lax investor standards; we took conditions for granted and we as an industry lost discipline”
This is not just the cause of 2008 melt down; it is the cause of many melt downs. Such behaviour appears to be normal in this line of business. Take a look the civil case filed by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Goldman Sachs in April 2010 charging ‘fraudulent misconduct’. This is not just an isolated incident as we can see from the following.
“NASD fines Citi, Merrill, Morgan Stanley $250,000 each” The America's Intelligence Wire July 19, 2004” (i)
“On June 6, 2007, the NASD announced more than $15 million in fines and restitution against Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., to settle charges related to misleading documents and inadequate disclosure in retirement seminars and meetings for BellSouth Corp. employees in North Carolina and South Carolina.” (ii)
“Merrill Lynch & Company said yesterday that it would pay $100 million in penalties to New York and other states and change the way it pays stock analysts to end an investigation that its chairman said had damaged the firm's reputation. “ (iii)
Citigroup Inc. agreed to pay a $70 million fine for practices in its Baltimore consumer finance unit, including raising the cost of loans to poor and credit-starved customers by requiring them to have unnecessary cosigners” (iv)
“Morgan Stanley, the second-largest U.S. securities firm by market value, was fined $10 million by the Securities and Exchange Commission because it failed to guard against insider trading for at least eight years. The fine was the biggest ever for a violation of surveillance rule” (v)
These are just a few samples. Do a Google search with the word ‘fine’ along with the name of any of the large investment banker; you will be surprised at the frequency of serious transgressions which are not just fines on technical violation but fines on substantive charges. We will wonder aloud “Will we ever learn?”
Compounding such practices is the frequent roll out of complex financial products which are often too complex for the investors to understand. Hank Paulson’s (who has been the CEO of Goldman Sachs before taking over as the Treasury Secretary) reference on the proliferation of product innovation is quite blunt on this. “In theory this was all to the good. But there was a dark side. The market became opaque as structured products grew increasingly complex and difficult to understand even for sophisticated investors”
This is why we need innovative regulation to match with the innovations in market place. In his blog post on regulating the new financial sector, Prof. Willam Buiter has given a very interesting suggestion “the same rigour used by US FDA for pharma and medical products should be insisted for introduction of financial products to broader market does not look out of place in the context of the recent history”.
We also need to think innovation in the checks and balances that we build in the system. Quoting Paulson again; “The regulatory structure, organised around traditional business lines had not begun to keep up with the evolution of the markets”.... it had led to counterproductive competition among regulators, wasteful duplication in some areas and gaping holes in others”
We in India have few important lessons to learn from all these.
To prevent run-away innovation that is rash and irresponsible, we need to put in place the right regulatory establishment to avoid the same kind of mistakes that has been laid bare in front of us. If we expect responsible behaviour and self regulation collectively from the guys running financial markets we are asking too much. We have not seen such industry wide responsible behaviour anywhere in the world.
Regulation does not mean micro-management of day-to-day functioning. Regulator’s role is to set the rules of the game and keep a watch whether the players are playing as per the rules. He also has to keep a look at the impact of changing structure of the game and modify the rules. If I give an example, the rules of T20 is not exactly the same as in the case of test cricket though both are cricket. To make this possible the regulators will have to be able to attract people who have the right experience, the right domain knowledge and most importantly the right attitude who can establish appropriate processes and use the modern technology tools and match or better industry strengths. This is the challenge of governance.
One of the major suggestions on regulation we often hear is to curtail all innovations; I don’t agree with this. We have enormous potential for modernising the markets with innovative products. If we say that we will be insulated from the turmoil on account of lack of market sophistication, we are not being very bright. It is like saying that I never fell because I never rode. A sophisticated market is a prerequisite for growth. In this journey we will make mistakes; and these mistakes will trigger better controls and that is the democratic process of growth. To go into hibernation is not the solution. Look at our favourite sport, cricket; from leisurely five day test matches we have progressed to one day internationals and now to 20 over matches keeping pace with our life. Notwithstanding, the controversy of IPL, the innovations have only improved the game on multiple dimensions.
“ We should and can have a structure that is designed for the world we live in, one that is more flexible, one that can better adapt to change, one that will allow us to more effectively deal with the inevitable market disruptions and one that will better protect investors and consumers.” Hank Paulson
(i) http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22046900_ITM
(ii) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup
(iii) May 2002, New York times http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/22/business/100-million-fine-for-merrill-lynch.html
(iv) Washington Post, 2004
(v) Bloomberg 2006
Monday, May 17, 2010
Scaling up: The Art of the Impossible - Part II
In Part I of this post, I had set the context for understanding uncertainty and its impact. Part II looks specifically at uncertainty and scale-up.
Generally we give a lot of attention to business uncertainty, but seldom do we give sufficient attention to operational uncertainty that is faced by the team members on their day work. Managing such operational uncertainty therefore is a very critical factor when we attempt to scale up any operation or any business.
Normally the core team that set up any operation or business successfully will consist of highly motivated, highly skilled, high performance individuals who are comfortable in decision making under uncertainty. Once the operations are on steam and ready to scale up we need to work with a different set of people. We cannot afford to have the same calibre people when the operation is scaled-up. It is not just a question of financial affordability; such people will not survive long in a regular operational environment. They are normally impatient lot and in constant search for new dreams.
Therefore we have to have processes to get work with ordinary, risk averse, simple people who want to be led. As Lee Iacocca pointed out “if you are a brilliant person you may be able to do the work of 30 people; but if you are a brilliant leader who can get work out of 1000 ordinary people and then you achieve much more”
One of the major weaknesses of normal people is their inability or discomfort to take decision under uncertainty. They need clear algorithm on how to address each eventuality. In the absence of such clear standard operating procedures (SOP), many people avoid taking decisions or become inefficient in taking decisions. In this case they are almost like computer software that hangs in the absence of sub routines to handle all cases. As in the case of elegant computer programs, the SOPs should have dependable error handling, clear exception reporting and escalation rules in place for un-programmed cases. Otherwise system hangs or misbehaves. Only then we can scale –up with “Intel people” like Google scale up with “Intel boxes”
We have to accept the reality that the vast majority of people need clear delineation of tasks to help them achieve maximum productivity. As Chris Argyris observes in the article ‘Empowerment: The Emperor’s New Clothes’ published in Harvard Business Review “Both research and practice indicate that the best results of reengineering occur when the jobs are rigorously specified and not when individuals are left to define them”
The first thing we need to do in our endeavour to reduce uncertainty is to map organizational goals to group deliverables and break down group deliverables preferably up to the individual level. Once the deliverables are broken down, then we should try to develop standard operating procedure or business rules for as many cases as possible. This has to be a continuous process and there should be process in place to continuously identify cases where SOPs or business rules are developed.
One of the risks when we have processes that depend on SOPs heavily is that the people get to be process oriented instead of result oriented. This is one of the major weaknesses of bureaucracy. It is here that we need to teach human beings to also use his human intelligence and not to behave like computer programs. We should clearly teach each person and team to appreciate what the SOPs are trying to achieve as results. We should empower the process owners to innovate and improvise on the SOPs when there are exceptions. Here again we should try to provide boundary conditions within which they have to flexibility. This will reduce uncertainty even with flexibility.
On the other hand we should also work towards helping people to learn the art of being comfortable under uncertainty because human beings who can make sensible judgement under uncertainty are key assets in any team. Although genetic trait influences this skill quite a lot, this is still a skill that can be strengthened by training and support.
We should also have a way to identify and encourage people who are adept at this skill. Most importantly we should ensure that people who rise up to leadership are the people who can handle uncertainty and also who can reduce uncertainty for their team. It is here that many organisations fail. They get impressed by people who have delivered excellent results based on their skill and knowledge in situations or functions where ambient uncertainty is low. Then we promote them to levels where they have to mange uncertainty which are outside their domain of expertise. This happens very often with respect to technical people. Then these poor souls (smart engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants) like fish out of water fail and the whole team suffers.
When we develop our scale-up strategies this is one dimension we forget and we focus on everything else like process, technology, people, finance and so on. We have to include operational uncertainty management as a key dimension with which we qualify our scale-up strategies. Else the best of strategies will fail on account of minds that freeze under uncertain outcomes.
Beyond all this theory lie commitment, conviction and faith that is beautifully described in alchemist “If you believe in something the whole world will conspire to make it happen for you”.
“Nothing great has ever been achieved except by those who dared believe that something inside them was superior to circumstances.” Bruce Barton
Generally we give a lot of attention to business uncertainty, but seldom do we give sufficient attention to operational uncertainty that is faced by the team members on their day work. Managing such operational uncertainty therefore is a very critical factor when we attempt to scale up any operation or any business.
Normally the core team that set up any operation or business successfully will consist of highly motivated, highly skilled, high performance individuals who are comfortable in decision making under uncertainty. Once the operations are on steam and ready to scale up we need to work with a different set of people. We cannot afford to have the same calibre people when the operation is scaled-up. It is not just a question of financial affordability; such people will not survive long in a regular operational environment. They are normally impatient lot and in constant search for new dreams.
Therefore we have to have processes to get work with ordinary, risk averse, simple people who want to be led. As Lee Iacocca pointed out “if you are a brilliant person you may be able to do the work of 30 people; but if you are a brilliant leader who can get work out of 1000 ordinary people and then you achieve much more”
One of the major weaknesses of normal people is their inability or discomfort to take decision under uncertainty. They need clear algorithm on how to address each eventuality. In the absence of such clear standard operating procedures (SOP), many people avoid taking decisions or become inefficient in taking decisions. In this case they are almost like computer software that hangs in the absence of sub routines to handle all cases. As in the case of elegant computer programs, the SOPs should have dependable error handling, clear exception reporting and escalation rules in place for un-programmed cases. Otherwise system hangs or misbehaves. Only then we can scale –up with “Intel people” like Google scale up with “Intel boxes”
We have to accept the reality that the vast majority of people need clear delineation of tasks to help them achieve maximum productivity. As Chris Argyris observes in the article ‘Empowerment: The Emperor’s New Clothes’ published in Harvard Business Review “Both research and practice indicate that the best results of reengineering occur when the jobs are rigorously specified and not when individuals are left to define them”
The first thing we need to do in our endeavour to reduce uncertainty is to map organizational goals to group deliverables and break down group deliverables preferably up to the individual level. Once the deliverables are broken down, then we should try to develop standard operating procedure or business rules for as many cases as possible. This has to be a continuous process and there should be process in place to continuously identify cases where SOPs or business rules are developed.
One of the risks when we have processes that depend on SOPs heavily is that the people get to be process oriented instead of result oriented. This is one of the major weaknesses of bureaucracy. It is here that we need to teach human beings to also use his human intelligence and not to behave like computer programs. We should clearly teach each person and team to appreciate what the SOPs are trying to achieve as results. We should empower the process owners to innovate and improvise on the SOPs when there are exceptions. Here again we should try to provide boundary conditions within which they have to flexibility. This will reduce uncertainty even with flexibility.
On the other hand we should also work towards helping people to learn the art of being comfortable under uncertainty because human beings who can make sensible judgement under uncertainty are key assets in any team. Although genetic trait influences this skill quite a lot, this is still a skill that can be strengthened by training and support.
We should also have a way to identify and encourage people who are adept at this skill. Most importantly we should ensure that people who rise up to leadership are the people who can handle uncertainty and also who can reduce uncertainty for their team. It is here that many organisations fail. They get impressed by people who have delivered excellent results based on their skill and knowledge in situations or functions where ambient uncertainty is low. Then we promote them to levels where they have to mange uncertainty which are outside their domain of expertise. This happens very often with respect to technical people. Then these poor souls (smart engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants) like fish out of water fail and the whole team suffers.
When we develop our scale-up strategies this is one dimension we forget and we focus on everything else like process, technology, people, finance and so on. We have to include operational uncertainty management as a key dimension with which we qualify our scale-up strategies. Else the best of strategies will fail on account of minds that freeze under uncertain outcomes.
Beyond all this theory lie commitment, conviction and faith that is beautifully described in alchemist “If you believe in something the whole world will conspire to make it happen for you”.
“Nothing great has ever been achieved except by those who dared believe that something inside them was superior to circumstances.” Bruce Barton
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Scaling up;The Art of the Impossible - Part I
There is one thing certain in our life; and that is uncertainty. Uncertainty about of life, our future, our family; everything in our life is uncertain. Most people are not comfortable to deal with uncertainty. But we have learned to accept such uncertainties on which we have absolutely no control, with certain amount of equanimity. Sometimes some of us try to reduce uncertainty about our future by visiting an astrologer, palm reader, so on and so forth. Linda Goodman and her ilk have made fortunes for themselves by exploiting this fear of uncertainty.
When it comes to areas where we have some control, like education, career, wealth etc, we are more uncomfortable with uncertainty. One of the primary reasons why we go to colleges and acquire degrees is to reduce uncertainty in our life. When we take up employment in a company instead of starting our own, we are trying to reduce uncertainty because the company has taken many of the key decisions with respect to the line of business, technology, product, process etc and we form a part of the team in implementing the strategies that have already been decided. Even in this case there may be still high level uncertainty as we go up in the ladder and/ or if we have direct business responsibility. When we take up a career in government we are still reducing uncertainty, as normally there is very limited systemic compulsion for results (as against process compliance) in many of the bureaucratic positions. (But there are many bureaucrats who try to do justice to their inner compulsion to make a difference)
I once did an experiment with a large group of my colleagues as a part of our internal training program. I gave three problems to all the participants and asked them to choose one problem they would take up to solve. The first problem was long, it had quite a lot of brute force computation to do; but the algorithm was sort of clear. The second problem was a logical puzzle. In this case the end result was quite measurable; it was evident that there would be an algorithm to solve, though the algorithm was not clear. The third problem had no clear algorithm or no one right answer. Most of the people chose problem 1, and only few chose problem 3. This kind of result will be common among most of the people.
There is one thing certain about uncertainty; that the success of any idea or project or company or organization is highly dependent on how we manage uncertainty for ourselves and for our teams.
To be continued ....
Certainty is the mother of quiet and repose, and uncertainty the cause of variance and contentions. Edward Coke
When it comes to areas where we have some control, like education, career, wealth etc, we are more uncomfortable with uncertainty. One of the primary reasons why we go to colleges and acquire degrees is to reduce uncertainty in our life. When we take up employment in a company instead of starting our own, we are trying to reduce uncertainty because the company has taken many of the key decisions with respect to the line of business, technology, product, process etc and we form a part of the team in implementing the strategies that have already been decided. Even in this case there may be still high level uncertainty as we go up in the ladder and/ or if we have direct business responsibility. When we take up a career in government we are still reducing uncertainty, as normally there is very limited systemic compulsion for results (as against process compliance) in many of the bureaucratic positions. (But there are many bureaucrats who try to do justice to their inner compulsion to make a difference)
I once did an experiment with a large group of my colleagues as a part of our internal training program. I gave three problems to all the participants and asked them to choose one problem they would take up to solve. The first problem was long, it had quite a lot of brute force computation to do; but the algorithm was sort of clear. The second problem was a logical puzzle. In this case the end result was quite measurable; it was evident that there would be an algorithm to solve, though the algorithm was not clear. The third problem had no clear algorithm or no one right answer. Most of the people chose problem 1, and only few chose problem 3. This kind of result will be common among most of the people.
There is one thing certain about uncertainty; that the success of any idea or project or company or organization is highly dependent on how we manage uncertainty for ourselves and for our teams.
To be continued ....
Certainty is the mother of quiet and repose, and uncertainty the cause of variance and contentions. Edward Coke
Monday, May 3, 2010
It is for me to choose
“It was my fate”, “It was destined to happen” are comments we often hear when something unexpected happens. Such comments suggest that we are a part of a giant puppet show in which things happen as per a supreme design and we have no control on what happens. Usually, such thoughts console us when things go wrong; because the failure was not on account of our shortcoming, not on account of our irresponsible behaviour, not on account of the evil deeds of some, but because it was ‘so destined’.
On the other hand, most of our formal social systems like the legal system, the education system and the performance evaluation system are administered on the basis that we have the complete capability and freedom to choose our (re)actions and behaviour. If we break the law, we can’t escape the penalty claiming that it was destined. This is sort of a paradox; the mental balance propped by our faith in fate and will of a supreme force and the social balance supported by a structure that assumes rational choice by every human being. In our day-to-day life we often vacillate between these two extremes.
I decided to think through a bit and take a view that could guide the way I interpret events and act upon them. I agree with the brilliant one line summary by Jawaharlal Nehru; “Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is freewill.”
We live in a totally inter-connected world. What we do out of our freewill could set off a series of chain reactions like what happens on the snooker board. Sometimes we get the shot right and the outcome is as predicted. Very often the chain reactions we trigger bring about a new order on the board which we never imagined; as expressed by the butterfly effect, based on chaos theory, made popular by the paper by Philip Merilees titled “Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?”
Some crazy kid decides to take his car for a spin. It was his free will. I happened to be in his way and got hit; it was my destiny. I survive with two artificial limbs; it is my destiny. I now have two choices. I can try to live on and find happiness in spite of my broken leg or can spent the life cursing the crazy kid and live a life of regret despair. Here I need to exercise my freewill.
This framework of freewill helps me to appreciate the fact that even though I have the freewill to choose, the options available to me are outcomes of a large number of factors on which I have no control and sometime the choice that we take makes it possible to predict how things turnout. It also teaches me that the freewill to choose does not guarantee any outcome; but I am still responsible for the choice.
How I exercise my freewill is also dependent on my mental makeup and strength. If I let myself to grow up without taking responsibility of my action then I may not be able to exercise freewill to the extent that is needed in any occasion. From this point of view freewill needs to be nurtured consciously and worked upon.
We can build up this skill as we build on our muscles. There could be limit on our ability to build on various skills; which could be on account of our DNA structure. But as we have to exercise regularly to develop a healthy body, we have to work on to strengthen how we react to what happens around us.
One of the true marks of achievement in life is the way we master this art of exercising our choice.
“The annoying thing about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame our problems on." P. J. O'Rourke
On the other hand, most of our formal social systems like the legal system, the education system and the performance evaluation system are administered on the basis that we have the complete capability and freedom to choose our (re)actions and behaviour. If we break the law, we can’t escape the penalty claiming that it was destined. This is sort of a paradox; the mental balance propped by our faith in fate and will of a supreme force and the social balance supported by a structure that assumes rational choice by every human being. In our day-to-day life we often vacillate between these two extremes.
I decided to think through a bit and take a view that could guide the way I interpret events and act upon them. I agree with the brilliant one line summary by Jawaharlal Nehru; “Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is freewill.”
We live in a totally inter-connected world. What we do out of our freewill could set off a series of chain reactions like what happens on the snooker board. Sometimes we get the shot right and the outcome is as predicted. Very often the chain reactions we trigger bring about a new order on the board which we never imagined; as expressed by the butterfly effect, based on chaos theory, made popular by the paper by Philip Merilees titled “Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?”
Some crazy kid decides to take his car for a spin. It was his free will. I happened to be in his way and got hit; it was my destiny. I survive with two artificial limbs; it is my destiny. I now have two choices. I can try to live on and find happiness in spite of my broken leg or can spent the life cursing the crazy kid and live a life of regret despair. Here I need to exercise my freewill.
This framework of freewill helps me to appreciate the fact that even though I have the freewill to choose, the options available to me are outcomes of a large number of factors on which I have no control and sometime the choice that we take makes it possible to predict how things turnout. It also teaches me that the freewill to choose does not guarantee any outcome; but I am still responsible for the choice.
How I exercise my freewill is also dependent on my mental makeup and strength. If I let myself to grow up without taking responsibility of my action then I may not be able to exercise freewill to the extent that is needed in any occasion. From this point of view freewill needs to be nurtured consciously and worked upon.
We can build up this skill as we build on our muscles. There could be limit on our ability to build on various skills; which could be on account of our DNA structure. But as we have to exercise regularly to develop a healthy body, we have to work on to strengthen how we react to what happens around us.
One of the true marks of achievement in life is the way we master this art of exercising our choice.
“The annoying thing about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame our problems on." P. J. O'Rourke
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)