Tag: middle path

  • The Price of Inequality







    I have read Dr Joseph Stiglitz. He is a Nobel prize awarded economist. The book I read first was Globalization and its discontents and recently I started reading The price of Inequality.

    I realized that Dr Stiglitz may not be the so called capitalist economist, he is capitalist but with a touch of a Just and relatively Equal society. So, when I started reading “The price of Inequality” I started wondering what kind of wealth difference exist in the US. Since, I have never been to the US so the picture of the USA I have always created is – no poverty, everyone having enough and more to not only survive but also a lavish life, a home with front garden, a car parking (of course too), wonderful interiors of the home etc. This picture is largely because of the Movies we watch – on a lighter note Hollywood is responsible for that ;).

    Well, while reading the book, I came across a video on Facebook (watch below).

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM]

    Though, some may argue this video is shared for more socialistic reform e.g. healthcare reform, but that is not the point of contention for me. Watch Margin Call to understand the point of view of the bosses of the investment banks – well to sum up “They do not care! Everything will be fine in sometime.”

    My perspective is not a fight on any economic approach e.g. socialism Vs Capitalism, I favor inclusive growth and I believe for achieving that we need to follow a middle path wherein a mixed approach be used.

    Read my previous blogs related to the book – Globalization and its discontents

    Blogs here

  • Collective Materialism – likely future of economy!







    I have written about socialistic capitalism or capitalistic socialism. When I say that I simply mean that we would move our economies and businesses in a direction where there would be a balance. It would be a kind of middle path where enterprise would exist at the same time there would be a concern for the society and social development. Take an example of corporate social responsibility (CSR), however the word CSR would become more of a practice than a statement in annaul reports. The reason for the same would be – we are all connected. If I do not earn how would bank generate savings? If banks do not generate saving how would they offer loan and so on. In terms of Buddhism it is similar to interdependent coarising.

    In more sophesticated words the tripple bottomline would be the corporate mantra in future enterprise. I thought of an example which could be the model for this concept of triple bottomline. I happen to read corporate philosophy of Sahara India Parivar – “Collective Materialism”. This company is very interesting and different – it calls itself a family and everyone is a worker first. According the the website of the company the philosophy of collective materialism is as follows –

    “In any human relationship, it becomes imperative to take into consideration the materialistic aspect of life – we do so but by giving it second priority.

    The first priority is given to emotional aspect and with perfect blending of materialism with emotionalism results in continuous collective growth for collective sharing and caring, that gives an impetus to our philosophy.”

    On a lighter note collective materialism is not what Government of India doing – filling pockets of few select few (so it is collective and materialism both) Sahara shree – Subrato Roy – deservers the credit for this philosophy.

    Related blogs

    The middle path

    Balancing act

    Cause…

  • We need pessimists!







    I was thinking about the middle path and two types of people came to my mind – optimists and pessimists. I went back in the memory lanes. As an innovation consultant, I was a part of a Summit on Innovation. Few of the workshops in the summit were on “Culture of innovation” in organizations. Everyone agreed that we need diverse team for innovation, however, everyone agreed that we need to engage only energetic and optimist members in teams. I asked myself; Why are we categorizing people as optimist and others? Does innovation require labeling people and then creating teams? In other words why we – as innovation consultants – are agreeing not to have diversity in team? Even in systematic innovation drives, we need people of different thinking styles and opinions.

    I asked myself let me define ‘pessimists’, to see if my questions make sense in team composition for innovation efforts? According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, pessimist is one who has an inclination to emphasize adverse aspects, conditions, and possibilities or expectation of worst possible outcome. Pessimists are those who negate or say no to anything because of their experience, knowledge, logical, old understanding or mere negative thoughts. Does it mean that they shouldn’t be a part of any team on say innovation efforts? I have heard somewhere – if an optimist makes an airplane, pessimist makes a parachute. Pessimists could be extra-cautious and introspective people, isn’t it?

    We need pessimists!
    Why we need pessimists too in innovation drives?

    In fact, pessimist is needed at places, because he/she may help improve solution with a “no” for many solutions. For example extra-cautious people help device seat belts in cars, safety values in pressure cookers, exit strategy in project/business plan. This “no” trigger teams to look beyond the horizon and ideate. Pessimists are the people who can be a great part in defining the problem and creating more challenges around the problem by questioning and negating. They endow the team with a new dimension to assumptions. It is well said – a problem clearly defined is half the problem solved. So do we not need pessimists, in defining problems? Pessimists can be a good help in exercises like heuristic redefinition and forward and backward thinking of the team because when they drive their thought process they also have an eye on the rear view mirror. I have heard – “Ideas of pessimists have saved more lives then ideas of optimists”, do we not need a balance in innovation teams?

    Pessimism is one face of a coin, other is optimism and a coin cannot exist without two faces. A good leader and an innovation team is one where best out of pessimists is utilized for improving its performance. Isn’t it right that we need pessimists… too!
    Copyrights KRD Pravin

  • A dancing elephant







    Louis Gerstner… Remember him? The legendary CEO of IBM and I crossed our paths this week when I decided to go through a book titled, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?. As chance would have it, it was also the time when I bought my new Lenovo laptop. For all those who have been disconnected from the world, Lenovo is the company that bought IBMs PC business some years ago. After using many renewed brands like Samsung, Dell, HCL, HP and compaq, selecting a new laptop should have been easy. It was, but not because I am more intelligent than 3 years ago. Only because the industry has consolidated a little bit.

    Is not it true with you too, that one factor for decision making is price – this holds true for me too. In first few chapters Lou says IBM had to do a price rationalization of its servers. This event of the book brings back memories of class of Prof Tomas Lopez and my long nights cracking the case with my buddies of MBA – Saurabh Deshmukh, Nikunj Pandya, Ashar and Chanchel Menon. How often have you made an opinion and written about a book even before completing it? I have made my opinion the book is very interesting and I am so impressed that I thought to write.

    IBM a gigantic and bureaucratic organization of 90s! If you are an Indian and have repeatedly circled tables of Govt offices and babus you would be able to understand what challenges Mr Gerstner must have gone through at IBM in first couple of months of his assignment. Honestly, only a few have to chance to lead such place and change this. However, seeing Indian bureaucratic system I believe there are a lot of opportunities for Indian Gerstners (Govt officers would read this blog). I can relate to IBM of early 90s (reminds me of one series of Asterix in which they have to clear a task of Greek Office). We in India say we are democratic country yet currently we are democratically fighting for Lokpal which is not heard by Govt.

    While reading that book I am asking myself – what is the purpose of existence for IBM (of 90s) and of Govt? Don’t you ask similar question to yourself – the purpose of our existence?

    Customers were last in the list at IBM (clearly not in the first few on the list) and in India Citizen are not the first priority (alas! it is democracy). Priorities are – Govt/political parties/bureaucracy, at IBM priorities were country heads/department etc. IBM was (not exactly though) out of touch with changes in IT industry Govt seem to have lost touch with masses. IBM was a big fat elephant so seems the Indian Govt system. “One has changed and is dancing now, will the other too?” is the question to ask.

    Also, I could relate to the teachings of the Buddha while I am reading the book. More on purpose of our existence and middle path later.

    Related blogs – Line of understanding, Lost in translation, Playing golf, work and meditation”…you have to swing naturally”

  • The Middle Path







    I was thinking about the change happening around us on a daily basis. On a lighter side – roads of Mumbai with so many potholes. Well, on a serious note the economic situation in USA, changing thought process of middle class Indian etc etc. Keeping so many thought aside and together what I was thinking to write is about the middle path suggested by the Buddha.

    I believe the challenge economies are facing and have faced are because of their lopsided strong stance. USSR failed (various reasons) one reason was strong rooted socialism. USA is facing great challenges one reason – blind faith in capitalism. I see the good part of Indian economy is balance between socialism and capitalism e.g. public private partnership. The message I see is – there has to be a balance. The balance is needed on various fronts such as the one I suggested earlier e.g. controlled aggression in earlier blog on Balancing Act.

    When I think about following the middle path, I see many avenues for the same in our daily life, in our profession. Think of emotion and logic there has to be a balance. If one is too passionate about something, it may turn into obsession which may be harmful. There is a thin line difference between being a Courageous person and being a foolhardy. Balance between work and life. There are various personality type that need balancing.

    Further, I thought about Prof Lopez and my class of Marketing and his advise to me. I realized – what is required is an accountability when any Marketing activity is pursued. I heard someone saying that Marketing is a bottomless pit. Now – and in the future – there would be a great demand and pressure on Marketing departments for controlling the expenses and achieving the results e.g. Return On Marketing Investments (ROMI). This would require a balance between Marketing analytics and creativity. Message should be conveyed creatively yet keeping the returns expected and doing a first hand analytical research on the ROMI.

    Net net, we have to follow or learn to follow the middle path – economies, Governments, businesses, society and individuals. Isn’t it?

    Related blogs – Irony! Balancing Act and Cause…