I heard a story that a person was ready to change his religion because of the strange rituals followed in time of demise of someone in the family. The question to ask at such times is – Are we meant for systems or systems are meant for us?

A mobile operator and a credit card company did the same with me. I always paid bills on time, at times in advance! Yes, I paid 1/3rd of my credit limit in advance. The problem with them was they did not listen to my problems because of an error in their system! Yes, ‘paralysis of system dependency’ – I would call it – could result in loss of business. I have also heard and witnessed in some cases – not invented here! and cannot work in this setup, type of comments. The reason for such limited thinking is our dependencies and self imposed limitations. I recall one of my senior facing similar situation, told to the client – are tum karo to sahi, bad me dekhenge kya problem hai. (You just do it we will analyze if there is any problem). He could say this with confidence because he knew what works, what is going to work and importantly he was not the part of the system.

I am not arguing against systems. I am just trying to say that one has to answer the question – why at first place we designed systems? Answer is to

1. facilitate operations of society (in case of religion, culture and laws)
2. facilitate operations of work (in case of businesses).

We resist change – because we have become inured to our system. See what is happening in case of banking reforms in USA. The situation is dire, yet reforms seem to be a tough nut to crack.

How long are we going to depend on systems and follow the system till death even if systems are not supporting our cause? Were systems made for making our life miserable? Well, I am not asking to rebel against systems, what I am giving a thought to is – why not critically look at why we are doing what we are doing and question our assumptions. These questions and issues if not addressed correctly create rebellion such as hippie movement.

What I could see is – There has to be two lines drawn, one between system and understanding its short comings and the other is understanding and rebelling against the system. I would call that line ‘the line of understanding’. More on this in future when I take information age Vs other ages.

I know this all seems a very weird connection, starting with religion, talking about my personal experience, challenge of a consulting assignment and then banking reforms and lastly to hippie movement! The reason I found is – in the end we all are human being, and everything connects somewhere. The need is to learning to see (oops its a title of a book on LEAN, which I have not read yet) and yes questioning assumptions.

KRD Pravin

Here I am supposed to write about myself. Professionally, I am quite serious and a workaholic; personally I am an individual who enjoys what he does and takes life as it comes. I am passionate about my work and actions and empathetically careful, attached and committed to them. All this makes me a fierce competitive professional and yet a compassionate soul, the Yin and the Yang together. Balancing is the art to be practiced using the middle path. From - http://business2buddha.com/about/


salusvijay · November 22, 2010 at 5:40 am

This is the first time i am ready your blog. I have found it very interesting and please do keep up the good work.

    Pravin · November 22, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    Dear Vishal, Thank you for the words of appreciation. I will continue writing trust time permits me to do that.
    I also read your blogs and they are pretty interesting too. In your recent blog – please add one more thing to do – you will write blogs regularly.

bet365 · November 24, 2010 at 3:19 pm

Good day I was luck to look for your website in google
your topic is quality
I get a lot in your theme really thank your very much
btw the theme of you website is really fabulous
where can find it

Lost in translation | Business to the Buddha · December 18, 2010 at 4:04 am

[…] The problem with us today is not translation only; the problem is getting hold of words incorrectly and staying with them. When the words could mean much more than the only dictionary meaning they convey, that’s where we find problems in understanding poetries. I have heard that someone was reading out a poem written by a Noble laureate to an aristocrat. Suddenly, the aristocrat stopped the reader and said either the line you read just now is incorrect or there is some mismatch. The reader re-read the line with some change of words (resulting in grammatically incorrect sentence) and hearing to the incorrect line the aristocrat said it seems good with the poem. Later, the reader informed the aristocrat, sir “I suggested the correction in that line! Poet was not willing to accept the correct but when I told him the GRAMATICAL mistake he accepted my argument”. Here the big question to ask is – whether the message is important or the words, meaning and beauty or the grammar is more important? [Here again it seems a fight between system and utility of system relating to my earlier blog on line of understanding] […]

Leave a Comment