Organisations and Leadership

Defining organisations and leadership is important and there are many ways in which it can be done. This is just one of that I think best defines the genes in terms of expectation. 

1 – Organisation of Opportunists

There is an organisation where the dominant behaviour is governed by only one objective, “My well being”. This is an organisation, where a number of individuals have come together to look after their personal benefit! 

When they keep saying different things and sometimes contrary to what they have been recommending but all their actions result in benefiting them, well that’s a classic opportunist. Everyone knows such people can’t be trusted.

With time and observation, it dawns on us that most opportunists are myopic in their vision and understanding of the world. These people cannot bring new thinking and it is above them to rise to situations where leadership and courage is required.

Most of all they cannot develop a thought, these opportunist are only good in terms of riding the momentum of public emotions. When the followers/associates become sentimental they will not come over to bring calm around them, rather they will use that moment and try to build strength. Time and again they will remain opportunist.

2 – Organisation of an Ideology

This organization believes in some fact or fiction or story or whatever. They have a belief, an ideology for which they work. Members here will put their personal needs and wants in second place to the ideology.  

Well, here you are dealing with an orgnisation where the basis to achieve a common goal. The goal is made or prepared considering their ideology, it is based on some principal -- right or wrong is always debatable but there is an underlying motto. .

Leaders with ideology can be people with exceptional ability.

If the organization is driven by the ideology such as --"Justice and Equality for all (and not limited to a certain set of people), if not of past, but for present & future" -- and its members are actually able to implement it then the people can consider themselves as blessed. 

When such organisations is working properly and is fair then you will see many leaders emerging. It can groom a good leader who can evolve to the caliber level of Mahatma Gandhi and Mandela. These days, such people are hard to find but more than that such organisations are difficult to find.

Otherwise it is extremely important to understand what is the core idea or the vision that one would end up supporting. Because it can be as distorted as the KKK, Black Panthers, Taliban, etc. (there are couple of Indian versions as well on all sides -- regional level, religion, caste, sub-caste, etc. ).

But allow me to put a little caveat. One must understand that with time and experience, since humans as a species also evolve, individuals will also change and organisations are made up of individuals.

Leadership : Bucketing individual leaders

Broadly there are four types of leaders. I have marked them as Type 1, 2, 3 and 4 for ease of reference:

Type 1: They want power and feel like a king. Power is their only ambition. At times such leaders can be so much of a control freak that they will go to length to discredit their opponents, especially those whom they consider as strong competitors. These are also mostly opportunists who transform into tyrannical. Type 1 does not have any grand plans. And they cannot think beyond 1-to-5 years (in democracy) or whatever period they fancy (dictator). And also they do not evolve in their message to the need of the people or the process of evolvement is too slow.

Type 2: Leaders that want position of power to profit only. From a leadership point these are opportunists. This may sound similar to Type 1, but there is a subtle difference, they don’t care of being a king or king maker or whatever, for them it’s not about positions its money/power or anything that they are aiming for constantly.

When opportunists become leaders they cannot bring radical changes nor will they rise up to a situation when people in general are sentimental. When the public in its emotional moments demand blood, these leaders will become brutal, but they will not dominate continuously by being brutal, that capacity these individuals do not have.

Since they understand their potential they will not aim for the highest office but the second highest or the council that supports the highest office. This is the lot which would shift between power broker and being in position of leadership like a governor, CM, MoS etc.

Type 3: Leaders, who want power in order to write history. It’s not money or power that is the driving factor here. It could be leaving a legacy, or creating history. Usually such people either create institutions or mold an institution to their vision. Off all the characteristic there is one that are crucial here if they are not only in power but they are also the face of power — Good debater/speaker – they will give speech to capture imagination.

If leadership is split between front face and party organizer, and the true leader is more of a party organizer and not in the leader chair himself/herself, then it would be completely ideological driven. There are also times that such leaders, when they get a taste of power, then ideology goes out of the window and they become Type 1 leader i.e. a tyrannical, power hungry leader.

Differentiating the two would be a challenge but I think the easiest way would be to see how they handle the day to day activity and keep an eye on their past actions. That should give you a glimpse of what type the leader is – Mahatma Gandhi/Mandela or Hitler/Chavez.

Type 4: People who are propelled to leadership position and their target is simple one, to stay in that position for as long as they can, even if they have no ability and/or appetite to deliver results for which the power was bestowed upon them. In either case such leadership is usually week

'Misconceptions!' Are mutual funds relevant? Yes!

Read an opinion on the MF industry on Business Standard -- http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/are-mutual-funds-relevant-113063000620_1.html -- given below is my opinion on the subject.

'Misconceptions!' Are mutual funds relevant? Yes

The only reason why MFs will not succeed is because there is a huge misconception about the industry

Financial industry experts fail to understand one simple view that most people from other industries have on finance -- 'It is complicated and boring!'

There is some truth in this view and yet it can easily be classified as wrong. The truth is, its not as simple as the functioning of a savings account. You will have to fill in various forms and give signature on few documents depending upon the financial product you are buying.

The common opinion is wrong for the simple reason that not everyone knows about the intricacies of each industry. If a software expert finds finance as complicated then s/he should also understand that for most people even software is a complicated. Why is there this misconception that 'finance should be simple'?

Now coming to the response for the article 'Are mutual funds relevant?' The author has raised four points why the industry will fail. And given below is my take on each of the four points.

Benefit perception: The benefits are not clearly perceived because most people fail to do their homework. Financial products should not be considered or compared to consumable products like mobile, soap, tv etc. The most relevant comparison for it would be either doctors, architects, or engineers of a specific subject. There are many times when you think that their services are not required but that is not correct all the time.

While everyone has an opinion on what should be done when you have a fever but it is advisable to go a doctor? There are many people who would buy medicines through a pharmacist and act as a self-doctor and they live a long and healthy life, but then many people also tend to fall ill severely because they took the wrong medication.

Similarly everyone will have an opinion on how to approach investments but its best to consult a financial advisor or someone who understands the intricacies of the product. You dont like their opinion, go for a second opinion, just as you would in case of a doctor.

Also don't think that pharmacist is an equivalent to a doctor. Similarly why do people have the misconception that someone who has chosen to be a distributor or broker will understand the big picture of your finances.  (For people who think doctors and advisors are wrong comparisons, I would suggest that you check how many doctors are there in your city and if all of them have similar number of patients queuing up.)

Investments are hassles: Yes it looks difficult to invest at times and there are lots of forms to sign and they ask you with all kinds of question. But the entire idea to protect you and hence the safety measures were created. Medicines too should ideally be given only against prescription although that's not the case but convenience doesn't make the actions as correct.      

Promise vs performance: Here again the problem is that of the first one. Who made the promise?

Consistency: Another misconception. You need to understand the industry and the person. This is surely one place where I would compare it to doctors. There are successful and then there are not-so-successful. Similarly there are successful financial advisor and not to successful financial advisors.

I think most people don't get the structure right. The misconception is that Mutual Fund should be held responsible for anything wrong while this position can have some merit but it would be better to treat the Mutual Fund industry like Pharmaceutical industry. AMCs are manufacturing products, testing them. Just as the dream drug, one pill that cures all problem, that pharma companies would be chasing; mutual fund industry will try to search for its one fund that will perform in all markets in all conditions. But how can that happen?

Just as you need to find a good doctor and hope that they diagnose the illness correctly, similarly you should find the right advisor. Else in one case you might lose your health, the other will risk your wealth.

The best one liners of Dilbert

A friend of mine had recently shared this with me.

Some of Dilbert's best one liners:

1. I say no to alcohol, it just doesn't listen.

2. Marriage is one of the chief causes of divorce.

3. Work is fine if it doesn't take too much of your time.

4. When everything comes in your way you're in the wrong lane.

5. The light at the end of the tunnel may be an incoming train..

6. Born free, taxed to death.

7. Everyone has a photographic memory, some just don't have film.

8. Life is unsure; always eat your dessert first.

9. Smile, it makes people wonder what you are thinking.

10. If you keep your feet firmly on the ground, you'll have trouble putting on your pants.

11. It's not hard to meet expenses, they are everywhere.

12. The guy who invented the first wheel was an idiot. The guy who invented the other three, he was the genius.

13. The trouble with being punctual is that no one is there to appreciate it.

14. In a country of free speech, why are there phone bills?

15. If you cannot change your mind, are you sure you have one?

16. Beat the 5 O'clock rush, leave work at noon!

17. If you can't convince them, confuse them.

18. It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end.

19. I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

20. Hot glass looks same as cold glass. - Cunino's Law of Burnt Fingers.

21. The cigarette does the smoking you are just the sucker.

22. Whenever I find the key to success, someone changes the lock.

23. To Err is human; to forgive is not a Company policy.

24. The road to success...... Is always under construction.

25. In order to get a Loan, you first need to prove that you don't need it ..

Missing the tidbit of life

Came across this interesting blog. In summary, the author is pointing out how the culture of 9-5 or eight hours of work has devoid him of enjoying his life..

I have been thinking about this myself for last few months. And somehow feel that working beyond 4-6 hours is actually not necessary.. The other 2-3 hours should be used to study, think through things, and read that is off your work.. After that better go and take a walk, listen to other people.. And may be, if possible then it would be better to go and travel a bit twice a year, go to a place you haven't been to before..

In fact I have come to realise that if you truly want to know a lane or a road, block etc then walk through it.. When you are riding or driving you tend to miss on too many things, fail to observe or understand the significance...

Living life is not just about making money, partying but its also about understanding, admiring and enjoying the small things in life -- walking, listening to other people, and spending time with family and friends, enjoying a cup of coffee/tea..

Abstracts - Antifragile, business, religion, introverts

We are living in such an information heavy world that it takes time and real effort to just chaff through many many bytes and words of garbage information to find something interesting. Off late, I have been thinking of sharing the most interesting pieces of articles on a daily/weekly basis where the topics can be as diverse as possible. Alas, haven't been able to do so until today.

Now I plan to share anything that I find interesting here and I would pollute it with my views while providing for the link so that you can enjoy the actual material.


----

A Talk Show : This is an all audio show between Nassim N. Taleb and Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman on Taleb's book "Anti-Fragile". It is very interesting and must be heard to understand the overall idea if Taleb. If you don't like reading through his book might at least listen to this.

He has some very interesting perspective as well!!!

"Education inhibits risk taking, this is what I don't like academia" -- Nassim Taleb

Listen carefully all the way to the last question because in the end you might just end up understanding anti-fragile better than Nassim Talem as Daniel Kahneman did when he answered for the last question.

Unpredictability is a great thing in life :)

-----

Memento Mori

This means "remember your mortality."

As legend has it, the phrase dates back to a conquering Roman general. As the general enjoyed Rome's equivalent of a ticker-tape parade, a slave was tasked with standing behind him, whispering "memento mori" into his ear.

The goal was to keep the general from getting too big a head... and possibly losing it in his next battle (because of lack of humility and lack of respect for risk). 


Something we are taught during school but somehow when we are grown up we tend to forget. No point in writing anything on my own, so just copy-pasted the part that I thought was most important.

----

An great interview of Asghar Ali Engineer. 

There are few people I would agree with as much as I do with with Mr Engineer on Islam and freedom. Most people may not get the time to read his articles and go through his views. But at a broader level even watching this video is a good option.

----


Introverted Kids Need to Learn to Speak Up at School

An interesting read on why parents should encourage their children to communicate. There are some clues on how but no step by step procedure.

If they seem useless to you, then next time onwards don't look at anything with the heading as "Abstracts"

Speak Up or Shut Up!!!

Came across this very interesting article that Reliance Industries has sent a legal notice to TV channels for covering a press conference-- http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/01/itna-sannata-kyun-hai-bhai/  --, now all of the channels are cowing down.

Ideally one would expect them to shout that they have been sent a legal notice and this is against freedom of speech. If anyone has to be sent a legal notice then it should be the people who had called for the press conference. Where is "India demands to know" - Arnab Goswami. This is a national interest story, and perfect for TRP if played properly!

TV channels are only a medium of information, they should not be held accountable for the information as long as "it is not their people (reporters and anchors) who are talking and their is no smart editing".

A reporter or an anchor can misinterpret an information in which case there is a possibility of a defamation. Also using the tools of editing, views can be twisted leading to misinformation, again raising a possibility of defamation. But when the medium is showing the view of an individual or an organisation then that medium cannot be held to accountability.

Its funny and extremely dangerous trend,  it is this kind of media that people tend to take serious and as a gospel of truth!!

Therefore, maybe it would be the best in the interest of the larger people if we put government regulation in all over the media space.

The plus point of having a full fledged govt controlled media section is that most people would know 'The Usual Suspects' if the media is not honest in its job. Behind the garb of freedom of expression and this entire self regulation talk, if the media is not forthcoming with information and frank in its expression then we have a failing fourth estate.

Either now is one of those moments when TV channels should speak up once again on freedom of expression and self-regulation or shut up and let the government regulate it.

Would love to hear some counter views.