Men Apart, Every Man an Emperor

It is not very often that I post blogs as frequently as a day apart, but today was no ordinary day. 5:30 PM is when one wants to pack up and look forward to going home. But some of us were sufficiently piqued to go to the Convention Centre at the Infosys campus to watch the Territorial Army Symphony Fusion Orchestra perform. (Note: I don’t ever think I can articulate the experience of being in the Infosys Convention Centre…. let’s just say that the sound system ,seating, video projection and the stage make up a truly world class auditorium.)

When Col. Deora, Commanding Officer of the Territorial Army (TA) came on stage to deliver the inaugural speech, he looked the part. Tall. Commanding. The ‘Army’ moustache. (Do I say that I was swayed into labeling him based on appearance? You bet!!!) What followed was a 5 minute lesson. On Leadership. Humility. Patriotism. And Public Speaking. I paraphrase… but the essence of his speech was thus: The TA is an all-volunteer force and the second line of defense after the Indian Army. Being a member of the TA cannot be a profession or a source of employment. In fact, you must already be employed elsewhere if you want to join us. You serve only when called. The front line soldiers of today’s battles are no longer the regular soldiers as we know them, but YOU, this multitude of professionals in the audience. The battles of the 21st century are not of matter but of mind. Gone are the days when armies move into a rich country to occupy it, and after establishing a beachhead, allow colonial structures to be developed. And we are here to talk to you, salute you and entertain you.

For a Commanding Officer to say that about us, I was amazed. Now, I am under no illusion that the software and consulting profession can match a soldier’s heroics. Soldiers fight battles. Or lose limbs. Or get hurt. We on the other hand shed our only drop of blood to that mandated medical test before getting a work permit.

Yet.... everything of what he said was true. The current crop of Indian professionals establish beachheads in new lands - with a difference. We go global not to colonize. But to co-opt. Co-exist. And co-create. Every time one of us travels overseas, (s)he does more than create a solution or offer a service. We represent our nation, and very often with dignity & pride. Understated yet efficient, we extend value and transform companies. At the same time, we do not gloss over our country’s limitations. We come back to inculcate the same global best practices that we have learnt on our journeys. And to make a difference at home.

The Territorial Army Fusion Band then took over. For the next 90 minutes, Infoscions were treated to a melody of instruments as varied as woodwinds, percussion, strings, brass, and pipe. Indian and Western tunes were played with flute, bagpipes, clarinet, drums, horns, trumpets, violins, saxophones, tabla and santoor. Ek Pyaar Ka Nagma Hai was followed with Somewhere My Love. Then came the popular Nepali folk song Resham Firiri. It was only today that I learned Surangani is not a Goan song, but a Sinhalese original. When John Newton’s Amazing Grace came up, it was clear that wherever you are, redemption and forgiveness hold true. The Indian Territorial Army Song was a pleasure to listen. And when the Infosys song, This is My Infy, was played, it was nothing less than a standing ovation (this amateur video is the closest that there is of this song in the public domain).

But the heart tugging moments were truly the patriotic ones. Who can beat Lata in Aye Meri Watan Ki Logon? I swear that I tear up every time I watch or hear Sandese Aate Hain. How about Kandhon Se Milte Hain Kandhe? Or our eternal favorite, Saare Jahan Se Acha. Playing of the National Anthem completed a memorable evening.

Two things remain. Col. Deora’s exhortation to us at the end to never hesitate to go beyond the last mountain while we will take care of defending our land. And the banner that read Men Apart, Every Man an Emperor. “What manner of men are these?" asked Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery as he reflected on an elite fighting force, the Parachute Regiment. "They are, in fact, men apart, every man an emperor”. The Indian Territorial Army lives up to the same principles....

It was difficult not to have goosebumps or teary eyes at the end of it all. We take a bow, Dear Soldiers, to your Leadership, Patriotism...... and Humility. Jai Hind!!!

PS: If you know of better links to any of the above, please send them over. I will replace the current links.

Swayed by Irrationality

Imagine that you have been selected to participate in an experiment where you are paired with a stranger. The experiment requires a total of $10 to be split in any proportion among yourselves. But you are also told that you would be placed in separate rooms and cannot see or communicate with each other. Once the experiment begins, one of you would be randomly designated as the giver and the other the receiver. Once the giver determines the split, the offer would be taken to the receiver. If the receiver accepts the offer, both of you would collect your respective share. However, if the receiver rejects the offer, both of you will walk out empty-handed. This experiment will be conducted just once; there are no second chances.

Now imagine that you are the receiver. Would you accept the offer if offered less than $5 (50:50 split)? Next, you are told that your partner is not a human but a computer. And imagine that you are the receiver again. Now, would you reject the offer if the computer gave you just $1 (10:90 split)?

I imagined myself as a participant and concluded that I would offer 50:50 as a giver. I would also walk out if I get anything less than 50% from a human partner. But I will take anything when a computer determines my cut. I suspect – but cannot conclusively prove - that most of us would follow the same approach.

But.... but.... most of us are rational, correct? From that perspective, it makes no sense to reject any offer in both cases, is it not? After all, any money is better than no money, and this money is free to begin with. So why do we want to be offered 50:50 where essentially the receiver and the giver are chosen at random? (Note: It turns out that most participants of this real-life experiment did offer 50:50, and in many cases when it was not, the receivers rejected the offer.) 

Well... it turns out that the reason we behave this way is that we are more bothered about the process than the outcome. When we say that 'it is about principles and not money', what we actually mean is that our sense of fairness sways our decision more than anything else. This, and several other situations, stories and scenarios, frame the immensely eye-opening Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behaviour. In under 200 pages, the authors show us that we humans are not as rational as we make ourselves to be, and that we are swayed to irrationality much more than we care to acknowledge.

It turns out that we sway due to two factors, viz. our own limitations as individuals and our confrontation to situations in social settings. Limitations include aversion to loss (think how we hate cutting losses in a stock market), commitment to a past decision regardless of how badly it is turning out (think Vietnam/Iraq), and our preference to attribute value based on first impressions (think love). Social settings sway us while in groups (think situations when we choose not to speak up even when we disagree with everyone else) or when we believe we are dealt with anything unfair (think.... well.... the previous paragraph).

The range of examples is breathtaking. You read about the (seemingly senseless) actions of a KLM pilot who took off without clearance in 1977 only to lead his passengers to a fiery death. You understand why you opt for 'flat rate' phone plans regardless of their true relevance in life. You learn much from how eggs and orange juice are purchased when prices rise or fall. You travel to Java to get a perspective on how archaeological discoveries are irrationally debunked by world scientists. And just in case you think that logic and rationality exists in 'near death' situations, you are shown samples of irrationality in the Israeli Army & in a Swiss town dealing with nuclear waste.

My favorite story? A world famous musician in jeans and baseball cap plays his  $3.5M violin in a Washington subway. Over a 1000 people pass him by and he is largely ignored. Normally accustomed to playing in front of sold out crowds and thunderous applause, the 40-minute subway performance of complex music does not even merit a few glances. Why? Because the audience attributed value based on his appearance. Now imagine the crowd around him if he was formally dressed and there were TV cameras around.....

If Blink encouraged us to trust our 'gut', Sway reiterates the power of irrationality in our subconscious. But where Blink lacked in explaining how negative stereotyping can be avoided, Sway stands out by explaining our bias and how their influence can be reduced in thought and action.

4 stars!!!

Questions, Labels, Binaries & Greys

1.

Certain questions constantly swirl.... What constitutes a balanced life? How do you measure success? Do fame and wealth signal that 'you have it made'? How do you explore spirituality in the realm of your daily life, and how do you grow? And if these are not enough, the fact that you go to work every day forces you to confront questions of a different kind. What defines a 'good' manager'? At what times do you - as an employee - look at yourself in the mirror and say 'job well done'? What does leadership mean to you and to those who look up to you?

Life goes through conversations around these – and several other. Some happen within our circle of family, friends and co-workers. But most happen within us. We contemplate, analyze, decide, test, learn, and adapt. This is a never ending cycle - one that peels through layer after layer of introspection. What we learn, imbibe and reflect in such moments defines our identity. And our way forward.

2.

We are a binary generation. We like answers to be a Yes or No. Take investments or retirement planning, a topic we instinctively run away from. We consider the person who gives us a quick one-hour dump for life's investment planning as a godsend. If you do this, it will help. If you don't, you will face consequences. Binaries distill our choices. This or That. Easy.

But not all situations, and answers, are binary. They fall into what I call the 'shades of grey' variety. The more we are uncomfortable with these, the more they seem to target us. The discomfort comes not just from the multiplicity of choice, but also from the labels that would define us based on the decisions we will eventually make. For instance, what do we call a person at work who refuses to take that plum promotion-inducing overseas promotion? A person with a lack of drive, maybe? But what if it was not taken up since (s)he did not want to uproot the family or affect the kids' education? Does that now make the person 'grounded' or 'balanced'? Which label will now apply?

3.

I was reading the excellent Steve Jobs recently. He must be complimented for giving Walter Isaacson a full rein for capturing his life and work. The book portrays him as a genius who possessed great intuition and was a perfectionist. He was also inspiring and built an A team. He was known to give consumers unbounded joy when they came across his products. The book says that a century from now, he would be heralded as one of the greats of the 21st century. But – yes, there is a but – the book also shows his other side. He was known to be wildly temperamental. He could make people feel small and bring them to tears. He displayed anger, caused hurt & created fear at work. He also acknowledges that he could not spend as much time with his family as he would have liked.

So in the context of those questions at the opening of the blog, where would Steve Jobs be on balance, success, fame, wealth, leadership, spiritualism et all??? More importantly, should any label apply?

4.

The McKinsey Award winner for the best article of 2010 in the Harvard Business Review was Clayton Christensen's How Will You Measure Your Life?. (Note: His book The Innovator's Dilemma is featured in multiple Top 25 business book lists of all time.) In this article, he talks about defining life's purpose, allocating resources to reinforce this purpose, the importance of humility and creating an enduring source of happiness. And concludes that we must think about the metric by which our life will be judged. (Incidentally, this idea was the inspiration behind my 'Think Think Think' lesson in an earlier blog.) 

This is where we humans falter. We forget that while life is a concoction of questions, labels, binaries and shades, there actually is a sequence and priority. We love simplicity, but by forgetting priorities, we get caught up in a swirl of confusion.

 

Only one label matters. To judge oneself (and be judged) as having lived a successful life. And success must only be measured in terms of having led a life of purpose (and not based on fame or money). Questions that life throws at us – and the answers we derive – must only reinforce this objective. Whether a situation is binary or grey is immaterial. Nor those other labels. 

Sounds easy.... but being human, this is where we get all mixed up....