Featured post

Why Write

(Reproduced verbatim from the 1st post on an old blog of mine - December 3, 2011) Questioning leads to better understanding, gre...

Friday, 26 May 2017

For Whom are You Not Crying Today?


A Cry for Positive Weeping

Dear Reader,

Please allow me to make a confession, a statement of regret. It has been a while since I cried. Yes, it has been some time since I wept - "truly, madly, deeply", if you will.

Does this make you wonder why I regret it?



Before answering this, let me share with you my understanding of why I have been hardly crying. In one line, to put it simply: because I am happy; because I have been happy. 

I believe I have been blessed immensely by God; He has given me a very loving family, relatives, friends, colleagues, basic material needs, education, talents and opportunities to develop them; and faith in Him and the means to grow further in His divine instruction. I am grateful for what life has given me, and I think I am - mostly - happy.

Of course, one cannot but be grateful for being happy; but it would be vain not to realize the problem that lurks underneath this.

The distant memory of a brief, yet intense, past experience I had, brought this into sharp relief. 

Someone very dear to me: she was crying, weeping. Selflessly, not for herself, not at all. I was with her, but I could not quite console her. Perhaps, I could not have. 



I am wondering, perhaps, I did not even need to console her! It was not needless, selfish crying. She was crying for a reason - and a very noble reason at that



I believe her tears have helped further purify herself, and strengthen her love and filial concern for the people for whom she shed those blessed tears. It has had a purging effect on me too. In awakening me to the need to cry more, cry better, cry original - for more and more people, for more and more causes.

Indeed, crying is cathartic. The ability and propensity to cry is a precious gift of God, of Nature. Let us shy away from "self-serving" tears, but not shy away from tears shed for others. On the other hand, let us embrace other-centred weeping - with the full strength of our mind, heart and soul.


We are what we are today, because of the tears of many great men and women, our mother and father being perhaps the foremost among them.

May we able to cultivate the time, inclination and opportunity to advance the well-being and salvation of others and hence ourselves too, by our lamentations. 

Let us Cry Positively! And Let us keep asking ourselves: For whom, and for what, are we not Crying Today? Besides enabling us to love more and laugh more often, who knows whose life is going to be or could be changed in what way - whether big/small - by our sincere soulful tears? 



Dheep
May 26, 2017

(Inspired by My Lord and My God, Jesus Christ and the dear and near ones He has given me)


Sunday, 14 May 2017

Be Everyone, Be No One: A Simple Idea to Generate Real Good Ideas

Ideas permeate life. Almost all human progress begins with - and inspires - ideas. The wheel, the Eiffel Tower, the TED Talks, the General Theory of Relativity, the Internet, the Mars Mission, organic farming, the idea of Creation itself - of both man in general, and you and me in particular: these are just a few manifestations of ideas that come to mind, at the moment. 

Yes, if we have to get better at what we do, why we do it, who we are and who we are becoming; if we have to help and inspire more and more people to do the same; we have no option but to lock ourselves into an eternal embrace with the infinite power of ideas.


While there are many steps in the Idea Life Cycle, the first step, it seems, is Idea Generation (we will discuss the zeroth step, in a future post). Now, there are various roadblocks to creativity; many known and hidden factors hinder the generation of ideas, especially in a group setting. There are various methods, and types of methods, people and organizations can adopt, in order to remove these blockages.

Here is one more: a simple proposal - a hack if you will - that I think could result in more and better ideas, especially in group/community/organizational contexts.

The key is to look out for two specific types of Ideas - "Everyone Ideas" and "No One Ideas", by being obvious and being foolish respectively.

Now, that may sound both obvious and foolish. So, let me elaborate.

Be Everyone

Ask yourself: which ideas would most, if not all, people find worthy of being accepted?

We are often afraid to look stupid. At the same time, we often fail to see "the obvious". In other words, what is "obvious" is often not obvious. Even then, when the "obvious" is pointed out, perhaps due to hindsight bias, people tend to say/believe that it was always obvious, thereby belittling the idea suggester. 

Due to this interesting dynamic, we may often hesitate - to not only state, but even explore, what is obvious. The systematic failure to explore the territory of the obvious can often create a nagging gap in the comprehension and assimilation of reality, at the level of individuals, groups, organizations, even nations and the world. 

Adopting this principle can often lead to the generation of ideas that are both must-do and eminently doable, but which no one has bothered to think of/explore/propose earlier. Or it may lead to ideas that are very basic, yet remains unattended due to mixing up of priorities.




Be No One

Here, we ask: which ideas would no one, if any, find worthy of being accepted?

We are all prisoners; at least partial prisoners. Of our past, our experiences, beliefs, values; of who we are and who we aspire to be. This is true at the level of not only individuals, but also groups, families, organizations, industries, nations, societies and even civilizations. The feeling of community breeds silos, almost as a natural by-product. Organizations fail to look outside their industry; often, their industry itself would be in a huge crisis, and the organization may not have woken up to it. As individuals, interactions with like-minded people may form the dominant or even exclusive part of our social diet, thus entrenching these prison-walls of the global society.

Due to the immense self-preserving power of the burden of the past, great ideas would almost always be ahead of the times in which they originate. As such, they are likely to find little, if any, acceptance among most people. [The Theory of Diffusion of Innovations, propounded by Everett Rogers, provides an explanation of the phenomenon of the spread of new ideas and innovations].

Would it not therefore be a good idea to explicitly seek out those types of ideas which are almost certain to be rejected by almost everyone, except you yourself? This is not to suggest that only you or me can be ahead of everyone else; just that at any given time, in any given piece of any giant puzzle, every individual in the group involved in the ideation process has a non-zero chance of striking some gold-mine that is as yet unknown. 

The hope is that, by explicitly encouraging people to think of such ideas, we are able to facilitate and expedite the difficult process of freeing ourselves and our imagination from the shackles of our cognitive prison-guards. Hopefully, we would then have a better chance of instigating everyone to truly aim high, dream big, redefine reality, galvanize energies, inspire action and help transform the world.

It may be added that not just individuals, even groups can Be Everyone and Be No One. In other words, the same principle can be applied at the level of groups and organizations too. So for instance, an organization can be no one, by explicitly search for ideas which no other organization in its industry or related industries would find worthy of accepting. 

What do you think of this post? Please do take a minute (or more), to share your invaluable feedback. Thank you very much.
May 14, 2017

Sunday, 7 May 2017

When Single Parenting of Ideas becomes an Innovation Killer!


"Anyone who gives an idea without taking it forward for implementation should be hanged".


- The Single Parenting Principle for Ideas (term coined by yours truly)

These are the words of a highly respected senior professional of my service. Do you agree with him/her - in principle? Do you believe that, with the freedom to propose ideas comes the responsibility to implement them too?

When one of my very good friends told me of this statement, and that she admires it, I told her that I beg to differ; I told her that, no, they should not be hanged.



Why should they not be hanged? Because I think the above philosophy conveys the following harmful messages to the people in our organizations, to us.

1) Thou Shalt Propose Only What Is Possible for You


By placing the responsibility for implementation on those who come up with ideas, the system implicitly asks employees to propose only those solutions which they themselves would be able to implement. What is the problem here?

Let me ask you; what is your potential? I mean, do you know your true potential? I am of the firm belief that whoever you are, your potential is infinite, a lot remains to be tapped, explored, realized. However, you would agree that many people underestimate their own potential (and hence of those around them too). 

Organizational culture can often widen this gap between true and estimated self-potential. For instance, a multi-layered bureaucracy where individual autonomy is minimal can make employees extra-diffident. Further, many employees (as well as executive leadership) commit the fallacy of regarding organizational resources as fixed, and set goals based on currently available resources as the starting point. This can lead to goals that do not do justice to the organization's potential.

Couple this with our risk-averse nature and the low tolerance level most organizational cultures have for "failure".

In this situation, asking employees for what is possible for them to do translates inevitably into what employees think is certainly possible. In other words, this can lead to ideas that in most cases are too modest to be good enough. 

The single parenting principle can thus scuttle ambition, imagination, freedom and creativity - doing significant harm to the quality and quantity of generated ideas. The organization thus can fail miserably in stretching the horizon of the possible, leave alone, inspiring the impossible.

2) Either We are Too Good or You Have Infinite Time and Energy

Besides demanding individual employee ability to implement proposed ideas, the Single Parenting Principle also expects employee willingness in bringing the idea to fruition. 

In most cases, proposing an idea is but one piece of the long-drawn process of organizational improvement. Significant time and energy would often be required in developing, implementing and institutionalizing it. 


Can we expect the same employee who proposed the idea to play the lead role in all steps of the process? Mostly, no; more so, if the idea does not squarely fall within the umbrella of responsibilities given to the ideator. Yet, this is what the Single Parenting Principle assumes.

Thereby, conveying the message that innovation and organizational improvement are optional, even a luxury!

3) Thou Shalt Work in Silos

We know that almost all organizations have a certain division of functional responsibilities. These boundaries are often closely guarded, thanks to a sense of attachment to one's work, which in turn flows from the personal pride in what one does. Not keen to rub others the wrong way, most people take care in respecting these work boundaries - even excessively. Left unchecked, this apparent deference to one's personal professional space can cultivate systematic organizational myopia, and can even lead to the permanent loss of even industry-redefining opportunities for the organization.

Arguably, the biggest insurance against such opportunity losses is an idea-friendly organizational culture. One where no one is afraid to be labelled an idea person or to propose an idea for the improvement of even a team or function which is normally "none of your business".



This is especially important, given that many ideas for organizational improvement are either applicable in multiple divisions, and/or spans multiple divisions/functions.

Imagine what the Single Parenting Principle does to an organization that lives by it. In one stroke, it kills most worthy ideas. The ones that do manage to take birth are likely to address at best some local issues which may be just symptoms of deeper systemic problems; not big-picture issues, let alone game-changers. If inter-departmental ideas do emerge, the transformation of the ideator as the implementer can well lead to ego clashes and dysfunctional conflicts. Ensuring thereby, an idea-shy organization.

4) Thou Shalt Do Great Work - All Alone!

The world has always been strange to the keen observer. On the one hand, today's world appears to be hyper-competitive; at the same time, it is true also that the age of competition is over! Yes, the ability to collaborate is perhaps the definitive "competitive advantage" in the 21st century, and beyond.

The Single Parenting Principle strikes at the root of the ethos underlying this collaboration economy, By incentivizing individual accomplishment rather than group performance, the principle can prod people along heroic pursuits of self-imagined individual greatness, blind to the beauty, meaning and possibilities of collective development and mutual meaning-making.



The Single Parenting Principle for Ideas fails to recognize that we need great teams, not lone geniuses, now more than ever. No, in fact, it entrenches the opposite mind-set and motivations.

5) We Are Not One

We saw how the Principle does not fit with the realities of collective human accomplishment, in terms of the demands it places on individual employee ability, energy, group work processes and the value creation process in the 21st century society. 

A closely related, and perhaps the deepest and most significant, failure of this Principle lies in what it does to the very concept and idea of the organization itself. To the idea of work.

Let us take a brief step back, before coming to this.

I have a daughter. I love her very much. Is she my daughter? Yes. But, is she "my daughter"? My daughter alone? Of course, no. Not only is she (obviously) my wife's daughter too, she is a daughter of God, and of the world too - in the sense of being a gift, a calling to be a blessing, to it. God, one's spouse, our family, the world - all of them, as well as our children themselves, have a role in the development of our children, even if we be their parents.

In a similar sense, just because I proposed an idea, does that make the idea mine? Even if we choose to conveniently forget that we stand on the shoulders of giants, the idea belongs to the organization, the industry, the world, the times. It is my humble submission that unless we are able to adopt this spirit, innovation is likely to remain a solitary, highly painful and often fruitless pursuit. 

Yes, idea and innovation success demands both letting go of the self, and loving "their" children as yours. By allowing only one person to parent an idea, the Single Parenting Principle kills not only innovation and organizational performance, but also the essence of the human spirit. And the danger is that it does it stealthily, subliminally, often without our knowledge and understanding.


Isn't it time we adopt a more single-minded approach? An innovation philosophy, where employees are:
  • encouraged to imagine the impossible and propose ideas that they believe they will not be able to implement (the ability may be unrealized, it may lie elsewhere, or the organization may acquire the ability),
  • freed to give suggestions without having to take personal responsibility for them (in the confidence that the management will take care of it),
  • emboldened to respectfully question accepted wisdom with childlike freedom and confidence (in the security that it will not hurt interpersonal equations),
  • motivated to build on each other's ideas and implement them together,
  • inspired to respect diversity, yet think and act as one, routinizing innovation and time-proofing organizational development?



Isn't it time we shed - and put an end to - the Single Parenting Principle for Ideas? Realizing that ideas have, and need, multiple parents, just like all of us need multiple parents? (I am not referring to biological parents, and please be assured that I am not making any evaluative judgement on the merits of single parenting). Hope I am not being over-confident in hoping that you agree!

Incidentally, I just discovered that I forgot to mention another - equally critical - reason for ending the Single Parenting Principle. Let me reserve that for another post.

Thank you for your kind attention, to this idea! If you find this as an "idea worth spreading", or at least deliberating upon, please do share this post with your friends/colleagues. Many thanks!

We all need feedback; would hence be grateful for your invaluable feedback. It would help me in improving/correcting my thinking, as also this idea on the Single Parenting Principle. Thanks again.

And deeply grateful to my dear and respected friend Neha; she is the one who has been the trigger for this post. Can't thank her enough.

May 7, 2017

Related Posts: