Avoiding the unavoidable

During my MBA days I came across many interesting stories. Some of them had a long lasting impression on my mind. One of such stories talks how we try to avoid the unavoidable. I don't remember the book and the author. I think the author will love the fact that I remember her/his story.

Once a man was searching something on a street just below the streetlight. A passerby stopped and asked what was it. It was the key of his room. With the intention to help the passerby asked where exactly he lost it. The answer was surprising. The man had lost his key in the nearby bush. Then why was he searching it on the street. The man answered: "there is darkness in the bush, so I am searching it under the streetlight".

The author had written in the story to highlight the under-performance of the economists and the finance community. Many times the economists and policy makers avoid going into difficult areas (darkness) and keep their focus on already known areas despite knowing the fact that they have to venture into the darker sides to find out a solution.

The story precisely talks how we as individuals and collectively are functioning. If we find darkness in certain areas we just try to avoid it and focus on areas where there is light. Following the easier way might not help. In life many times we try to please ourselves by finding out logic that are illogical. Instead of venturing into the darker parts we love to forcibly accept the unacceptable facts. If we don't like something we keep on telling ourselves- "this how the world is". We forget that accepting fact is different than not even trying to find out to do something you like. And many times simply carrying a portable light to the dark area may solve the problem rather than searching a solution where there is light.

The financial crises we face proves that the author of the story was correct about the economists and finance community. An introspection may help us to realize that the story is equally acceptable to our lives as well.

Reading Between the Lines

During my MBA studies I came across the term "reading between the lines" several times. What a confusing term it was! I used to see blank space between the lines. What to read then?

Use of the term sky-rocketed in strategy papers. Now even in an HBR article it was told that you have to read between the lines. What to read as there is nothing between lines.

Initially it was all about finding out the inferred meaning, the implicit message. Reading between the lines meant "apply your brain to understand that the author wants to say without saying explicitly". But as the MBA journey (thank god! for me it was never a journey of 2/2 matrices) moved towards it climax (believe me, most of my friends and I call it anti-climax!) I realized reading between the lines could be more than its dictionary meaning. It's not only what the author is saying implicitly, it's also about why the author is saying whatever he is saying. Is there any personal bias, is there any tampering of facts and so on.

In some of the subjects terms like asymmetry, distinct yet implicit, network dynamics helped me to understand reading between the lines also requires connecting what you have read in the lines and between the lines from different sources. The understanding that the obvious sources, widely considered as reliable could also be tampered helps to read between the lines. For example the newspapers we read might get influenced by govt, corporations and political parties. In the present context the newspaper industry will love to see these entities as their customer as they pump money through advertisements. The newspaper reader could be fooled by their nexus. And what one gets to read could be a tampered, lopsided view of the situation. Forget about the newspapers, we have seen people complaining the kind of distortions we have in our text books.

Reading between the lines is difficult. It is equally difficult to identify what not to read in the explicit writing also.

My initial concerns of how to read between the lines is still unresolved. What to read (not to read) in what has been written in the lines has also become equally important concern.

How Loyal Are We?

Even a dog is loyal. Are you?

This commonly used statement confuses me. When we extend the logic used for dog to human beings many things come to my mind. "Are you loyal?" is an incomplete question. Loyal to what? When we say a dog is loyal we mean it's loyal to its master. But is it wise to expect a human being to be loyal to it's master? Answer is probably "Yes. Why not?"

In a recent conversation, my good friend who works with an MNC, projected a bright but untrue picture of his company. Many people present there had no option but to believe him. The next time I met my friend personally I asked about the veracity of the projection he had. As suspected that was a grossly exaggerated statement. But what was the need? What's the point in such distortion? My good friend believes making distorted positive statements about his employer reflects his loyalty- no matter how untrue the statement is.

Is it fine for a human being (even for a dog) to be loyal to his master knowing that the master lacks integrity, humanity and character. It will be difficult for a dog and many people to leave the master. It may not be possible to stand with truth, justice and humanity when your basic bread and butter is at stake. But what surprises me when well educated people pretend to be loyal to their employer despite knowing that the master doesn't deserve to be a master.

You must have seen many professionals who have loved to be loyal to their work, to their profession, to the society rather than being loyal to the employer. What's the point of being loyal to the employer? After all, you are contributing your work and being paid for that. You may not like to disclose any critical information of the employer or try to bring embarrassment to the employer but at the same time given a chance, you won't mind to reconsider working with a new employer if they value your work or talent better. And if you feel the employer is in a wrong path, or promotes a culture that is not conducive to your personal learning and growth you have every right to opt out. Does it mean disloyalty? May be not! A professionals definition of loyalty is different from the definition of loyalty applied for a dog.

Being loyal may not mean to nod your head with agreement every time. If there is an opposition for a good reason, if there is a disagreement with a valid logic it doesn't make you disloyal.

Then what about the educated people who change their own view just to align it with the view of their masters/employers? What about the people who take an U turn on their own statements to ensure that they don't differ from their boss? May be they are yet discovering how to define loyalty. May be for them loyalty is only saying "yes" without using brain.

How loyal are we depends on how we see the term loyalty, how we interpret it and at what level we are looking at it.