Thursday, June 25, 2015
The missed opportunity of Tanu Weds Manu returns
It was extremely disappointing to see the ending of Tanu weds manu. It fundamentally speaks to the old adages :
1. That once you are married, there is love 'hidden' somewhere beneath all the tumult. That the phnomenon of 'growing out of love' does not exist.
2. On a sub-conscious level it tells woman that the one who is self-sufficient, and who has made a life with confidence and is independent will not be "accepted". That the rebel has to bow down to the usual cautions that come with 'love' marriages.
I cannot forget the lines between Tanu and Kusum where Kusum has her say. Her dialogues about financial independence, taking responsibilities in life and not feeling entitled are the stuff of legend. Was so inspired listening to them.
Also the character of Manu is writ with the inability to take a stand. Give marriage your best shot but have the courage to walk away if things are not working out. His last-minute sucummbing to 'there must be love somehere' does not get him any sympathies.
While this was a great movie otherwise, what would have taken it to the next level would have been if Manu and Kusum would have got married. Perhaps it would have inspired a few to swim against the tide.
1. That once you are married, there is love 'hidden' somewhere beneath all the tumult. That the phnomenon of 'growing out of love' does not exist.
2. On a sub-conscious level it tells woman that the one who is self-sufficient, and who has made a life with confidence and is independent will not be "accepted". That the rebel has to bow down to the usual cautions that come with 'love' marriages.
I cannot forget the lines between Tanu and Kusum where Kusum has her say. Her dialogues about financial independence, taking responsibilities in life and not feeling entitled are the stuff of legend. Was so inspired listening to them.
Also the character of Manu is writ with the inability to take a stand. Give marriage your best shot but have the courage to walk away if things are not working out. His last-minute sucummbing to 'there must be love somehere' does not get him any sympathies.
While this was a great movie otherwise, what would have taken it to the next level would have been if Manu and Kusum would have got married. Perhaps it would have inspired a few to swim against the tide.
Tuesday, June 03, 2014
Is Sexual Objectification Bad
Very thought-provoking article on : http://nationofbeancounters.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/is-sexual-objectification-bad/
Credit : Navin Kumar
Credit : Navin Kumar
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Psychology Insights
Som of important concepts of social psychology :
1. Cognitive Dissonance : People feel tension in holding two contradicting views in their mind. They try to reduce this tension by rationalising.
Example 1 : the harder it is to gain membership in a group, the more highly the group is valued by the person who is accepted. We convince ourselves we love what has caused us pain in order to feel that the pain was worthwhile.
Example 2 : When people behavee in ways that they are liveky to see as either stupid or immoral they change theiur attitueds to as to believe that their beavious is sensible and justified. (smokers tend to believe that the proof against smoking is inconslusive)
2. Obedience to authority : People generally are obedient to authority. (Shock experiment).
3. The Bystander effect : People do nothing if they believe that someone else will do it. The bigger the size of the crowd, the more will a particular person be motivated to act. Related to social loafing.
4. Attribution : Refers to processes by which we make inferenace about the causes of events in our lives and behaviour of others.
5. The Big Five of Personality :
i) Extraversion : Sociability, activity and interpersonal involvement.
ii) Neuroticism : emotionality, emotional stability and adjustment
iii) Openess to experience : inquiring intellect, intelligence etc.
iv) Agreeableness : trust, altruism, likeability
v) Conscientiousness : dependebility, restrained self-discipline etc.
6. GroupThink : Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. It is a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion.
7. The Abilene paradox is a paradox in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of any of the individuals in the group.It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and, therefore, does not raise objections. A common phrase relating to the Abilene paradox is a desire to not "rock the boat".
8. Locus of control : Circle of influence and circle of control.
1. Cognitive Dissonance : People feel tension in holding two contradicting views in their mind. They try to reduce this tension by rationalising.
Example 1 : the harder it is to gain membership in a group, the more highly the group is valued by the person who is accepted. We convince ourselves we love what has caused us pain in order to feel that the pain was worthwhile.
Example 2 : When people behavee in ways that they are liveky to see as either stupid or immoral they change theiur attitueds to as to believe that their beavious is sensible and justified. (smokers tend to believe that the proof against smoking is inconslusive)
2. Obedience to authority : People generally are obedient to authority. (Shock experiment).
3. The Bystander effect : People do nothing if they believe that someone else will do it. The bigger the size of the crowd, the more will a particular person be motivated to act. Related to social loafing.
4. Attribution : Refers to processes by which we make inferenace about the causes of events in our lives and behaviour of others.
5. The Big Five of Personality :
i) Extraversion : Sociability, activity and interpersonal involvement.
ii) Neuroticism : emotionality, emotional stability and adjustment
iii) Openess to experience : inquiring intellect, intelligence etc.
iv) Agreeableness : trust, altruism, likeability
v) Conscientiousness : dependebility, restrained self-discipline etc.
6. GroupThink : Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. It is a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion.
7. The Abilene paradox is a paradox in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of any of the individuals in the group.It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and, therefore, does not raise objections. A common phrase relating to the Abilene paradox is a desire to not "rock the boat".
8. Locus of control : Circle of influence and circle of control.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Melting Pot ? You bet not
Call me a traditionalist. But i think that the World Cup French team is a big 'fake'.
The reason is that in the entire team of 11 people, more than half are of African origin. I believe that the team should be a reflection of the national character. Buying talent, while it perhaps guarantees success, does little to define the national character. And if you think national character is a fuzzy and confused concept, look no further than Japan. They say in Japan that you cannot become a Japanese - you have to be born one. Anyone living in Japan for a significant length of time will find resonance in that view.
Here's an example through a joke.
(Heaven in Europe is a place where the British are the policemen, the French are the cooks, the Germans are the engineers, the Italians are the lovers and the Swiss run the place.
The reason is that in the entire team of 11 people, more than half are of African origin. I believe that the team should be a reflection of the national character. Buying talent, while it perhaps guarantees success, does little to define the national character. And if you think national character is a fuzzy and confused concept, look no further than Japan. They say in Japan that you cannot become a Japanese - you have to be born one. Anyone living in Japan for a significant length of time will find resonance in that view.
Here's an example through a joke.
(Heaven in Europe is a place where the British are the policemen, the French are the cooks, the Germans are the engineers, the Italians are the lovers and the Swiss run the place.
And hell is where the British are the cooks, the French are the engineers, the Germans are the policemen, the Swiss are the lovers and the Italians run the place.)
Basically, if the trend in Europe of immigration continues, then the old Europe Hell-Heaven joke might not be funny in a few decades. Basically i am raising a question on nationality and ethnicity. My point is that barring a few countries like the US, which have no culture to speak of (in the historical sense) every nation is characterized by a ethnic group. That ethnic group might have more progressive values as time goes by but will probably have an enduring set of characteristics that typify them.
And here is the issue. As countries have higher immigration, and the concept of citizenship is more immigration-led rather than being born into an ethnic group, we will find an increased dilution of the national character.
Mind you that does not mean that we are moving to a 'golden mean' as predicated by Pundits. The US did not become a "melting pot", it became a "salad". In an alien land, people don't assimilate but they cling on to their national characteristics more tenaciously than ever.
So the current French football team is a Joke.
Friday, December 04, 2009
What is Fair
Oftern we are at crossroads to decide which of the following courses
should be applied :
1. If there is differntial performance, should the winner be encouraged with rewards and the loser be penalised for his performance
2. A second view is that the winner will anyway take care of themselves and given limited resources, it should be our endeavour to support the loser to help him better his performance.
Which of these two views is more tenable?
In my view, the answer lies in the context of the relationship and the resources available to persue two competing actions (reward winner vs encourage loser). For example, in a business organisation, where resources are limited, the winner gets a bigger piece of the pie and the loser typically is given the go-by.
However, if it is a household when there are two children, who are diffrerent in capabilities (say'winner'and 'loser'), parents will typically encourage the one with lower capability to do better. They will appeal to one with the higher capability to guide the other child and given limited resources will do more for the less capable child.
The question becomes more tricky when say a federal govt is dealing with state governments. A fair distribution plan would entail that the bigger contributor to the kitty get a larger share. However the federal govt. would like to encourage lagging states to do better and hence apportion a larger pool of contributed resources back to the poor-performing states.
This is in effect a subsidy - the better-performing states subsidizing the poor-performing states.
Here, i believe the laffer curve-principle will apply. There is an equilibrium point beyond which there will be diminishing returns. The subsidy should not be large enough for the better-performing states to disincetivise them to do well. However without some kind of 'extra' subsidy there may not be resources to help the poor performing ones.
Balance again seems to be the key to doing this.
should be applied :
1. If there is differntial performance, should the winner be encouraged with rewards and the loser be penalised for his performance
2. A second view is that the winner will anyway take care of themselves and given limited resources, it should be our endeavour to support the loser to help him better his performance.
Which of these two views is more tenable?
In my view, the answer lies in the context of the relationship and the resources available to persue two competing actions (reward winner vs encourage loser). For example, in a business organisation, where resources are limited, the winner gets a bigger piece of the pie and the loser typically is given the go-by.
However, if it is a household when there are two children, who are diffrerent in capabilities (say'winner'and 'loser'), parents will typically encourage the one with lower capability to do better. They will appeal to one with the higher capability to guide the other child and given limited resources will do more for the less capable child.
The question becomes more tricky when say a federal govt is dealing with state governments. A fair distribution plan would entail that the bigger contributor to the kitty get a larger share. However the federal govt. would like to encourage lagging states to do better and hence apportion a larger pool of contributed resources back to the poor-performing states.
This is in effect a subsidy - the better-performing states subsidizing the poor-performing states.
Here, i believe the laffer curve-principle will apply. There is an equilibrium point beyond which there will be diminishing returns. The subsidy should not be large enough for the better-performing states to disincetivise them to do well. However without some kind of 'extra' subsidy there may not be resources to help the poor performing ones.
Balance again seems to be the key to doing this.
Friday, January 04, 2008
HR Insight
After seven years of being an HR professional, the following are my views on the employment contract. Firstly i beieve that the employment relationship has mutated from a 'paternalistic' one to a very 'transactional' one. Which means that it is foolish to very attached and sentimental about one's employment. The first thing to understand is that an organisation is a 'selfish', perhaps mildly 'psychopathic'. And hence in this capitalistic world it is an agent to make profit. I think the world is confused about ascribing altruistic motives to organisation when that is not their primary purpose.
Anyway coming back to the employment relationship, i believe, that choosing to take-on or stick to a job is rather like buying a car. How so ? In buying a car we make choices and trade-offs. One cannot have everything in a car; we have to make trade-offs. We cannot have a car in our budget and also have fuel-efficiency, power, legroom, luggage space and also a premium luxury brand. We have to make trade-offs. We can have a better fuel-efficiency but compromise power, we may trade off a premium brand for one more affordable etc. I believe that taking and continuing a job is exactly like that. Making trade-offs. We make unconsious trade-offs about compensation (current or future), benefits, employability, the boss, growth opportunities, marque brands and choices related to our life-stage/mental make-up. Till such time the trade-offs make sense, people stay on in their organisations - otherwise they move on. For example an employee will trade-off higher compensation for a bad boss or will trade-off a marque employer brand on one's CV for lower compensation. They make these choices in the context of their life-stage (young adult, married, married with school-going children) and a function of their own mental make-up (ambitious, life-interest, variety-seeking, self-actualisation). Till the trade-offs are in the zone of tolerace, they stay in an organisation. Sometimes there is an inertia to change too which stops people from quitting and they just enough not to get kicked out of their jobs.
Of course, the above is only valid in a scenario where there are enough employment choices. When bereft of choices, people will do anything to earn their two square meals. Here again the trade-off of remaining hungry and doing a job they hate, hunger triumphs.
So the only thing that organisations should do is to minimise the trade-offs and work on multiple fronts. The key, i believe is to make almost uniform efforts in all directions - perhaps not be the best in any one but make efforts on all fronts specific to the employee demographic they are trying to attract:
- compensation & benefits
- boss (manager sensitivity training)
- growth (lateral growth, fast-track talent identification)
- employability (work content)
Some of the things like life-choices, self-actualisation etc. are not in the control of organisations and they should not be too worried about losing people for those reasons. Also all organisations should not worry about 'attracting the best' talent at all levels. The kind of talent required should be based on their business model. Not all models require the 'best' talent in all levels, notwithstanding Mckinsey's "war of talent". Organisations should take a considered view on which few roles are critical and manage accordingly. People will always take a 'portfolio' approach to their jobs. They will pick-and-choose those aspects that matter to them. Organisations should also do that based on their needs !
Anyway coming back to the employment relationship, i believe, that choosing to take-on or stick to a job is rather like buying a car. How so ? In buying a car we make choices and trade-offs. One cannot have everything in a car; we have to make trade-offs. We cannot have a car in our budget and also have fuel-efficiency, power, legroom, luggage space and also a premium luxury brand. We have to make trade-offs. We can have a better fuel-efficiency but compromise power, we may trade off a premium brand for one more affordable etc. I believe that taking and continuing a job is exactly like that. Making trade-offs. We make unconsious trade-offs about compensation (current or future), benefits, employability, the boss, growth opportunities, marque brands and choices related to our life-stage/mental make-up. Till such time the trade-offs make sense, people stay on in their organisations - otherwise they move on. For example an employee will trade-off higher compensation for a bad boss or will trade-off a marque employer brand on one's CV for lower compensation. They make these choices in the context of their life-stage (young adult, married, married with school-going children) and a function of their own mental make-up (ambitious, life-interest, variety-seeking, self-actualisation). Till the trade-offs are in the zone of tolerace, they stay in an organisation. Sometimes there is an inertia to change too which stops people from quitting and they just enough not to get kicked out of their jobs.
Of course, the above is only valid in a scenario where there are enough employment choices. When bereft of choices, people will do anything to earn their two square meals. Here again the trade-off of remaining hungry and doing a job they hate, hunger triumphs.
So the only thing that organisations should do is to minimise the trade-offs and work on multiple fronts. The key, i believe is to make almost uniform efforts in all directions - perhaps not be the best in any one but make efforts on all fronts specific to the employee demographic they are trying to attract:
- compensation & benefits
- boss (manager sensitivity training)
- growth (lateral growth, fast-track talent identification)
- employability (work content)
Some of the things like life-choices, self-actualisation etc. are not in the control of organisations and they should not be too worried about losing people for those reasons. Also all organisations should not worry about 'attracting the best' talent at all levels. The kind of talent required should be based on their business model. Not all models require the 'best' talent in all levels, notwithstanding Mckinsey's "war of talent". Organisations should take a considered view on which few roles are critical and manage accordingly. People will always take a 'portfolio' approach to their jobs. They will pick-and-choose those aspects that matter to them. Organisations should also do that based on their needs !
Monday, March 05, 2007
Primary Education : The Panacea
After a lot of pondering, i have come to the conclusion that education is the one thing India should concentrate on. Why ? Because it is the bedrock through which a lot of the subsidary problems can be solved. Take a whole lot of social problems :- Dowry, child marriage, untouchability etc. It is also something which will be economically beneficial to all in the long run. Human capital can act as accelators to growth of any economy. There are umpteen examples to show that countries that have emphasised on education. What we need today is investment in the primary education. The whole country will leapfrog if quality basic primary education is available in rural India. Later on, particularly in the second half of the 20th century, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and other economies in East Asia followed similar routes and firmly focused on general expansion of education. Widespread participation in a global economy would have been hard to accomplish if people could not read or write, or produce according to specifications or instructions, or to have quality control.
Also what we do not need is more costly higher education. I am of the firm belief that those who want higher education should be prepared to pay the (higher) cost for it. So while we surely need more QUALITY higher education, it is best to let that be addressed by the market. (did you know that Harvard and MIT are private insititues ?).
The govt. should focus on providing basic quality eduction. In this context, i am a fan of the Panchayati Raj. Cutting all the platitutues, Panchayati raj at its core is decentralised decision making. The decision on how to operate a school in a remote village is not left to a disinterested underpaid babu. It is left to the 'democaratically' elected elders of the village - who now with the power to take decisions locally will have to be answerable to the electorate come polling time. In the centralised model, there was no accountability of wether classes were being conducted. Nobody could fire the teacher, nor raise his salary. Under Panchayati Raj, the same decision can be taken at the nest meeting of the elders.
So i believe that if i ever choose to do social service, i will contribute to the cause of rural primary education.
Also what we do not need is more costly higher education. I am of the firm belief that those who want higher education should be prepared to pay the (higher) cost for it. So while we surely need more QUALITY higher education, it is best to let that be addressed by the market. (did you know that Harvard and MIT are private insititues ?).
The govt. should focus on providing basic quality eduction. In this context, i am a fan of the Panchayati Raj. Cutting all the platitutues, Panchayati raj at its core is decentralised decision making. The decision on how to operate a school in a remote village is not left to a disinterested underpaid babu. It is left to the 'democaratically' elected elders of the village - who now with the power to take decisions locally will have to be answerable to the electorate come polling time. In the centralised model, there was no accountability of wether classes were being conducted. Nobody could fire the teacher, nor raise his salary. Under Panchayati Raj, the same decision can be taken at the nest meeting of the elders.
So i believe that if i ever choose to do social service, i will contribute to the cause of rural primary education.
