One of the first things you lose in corporate life is
Innocence. I keep telling the new kids on the block. Shape up, don’t be so
stupid, lose your innocence, don’t get screwed, protect your backside. I lost
my innocence little by little. So will you. Losing innocence is not necessarily
a bad thing. You will lose it, you will get tougher, you will realise that not
what everybody says is true. You figure things like what they say versus what
they mean; you learn to take instructions over emails and ask people to be
specific. There is lot of innocence to be lost.
I lost a lot over the years. Also I have learnt to deal with
issues differently. There are so many things that upset you or are potential
hazards. Most of the time they are hazards that you have to live with. Shit
that you can’t avoid. You just have to be patient and wait out the storm. These
things are best dealt with, with your tummy to the ground. These are tough
things for your egot o swallow or really hit your self-esteem in the short run.
But over the long run it doesn't matter. I have learnt over a period of time to
think smartly. Here – this round is yours, it doesn't matter. Here another
round is also given to you. You save your blows for the main game. In many
cases you just don’t bother about the main game at all. Who cares about the
main game? Most the things if sufficiently ignored, just goes away. The challenge
is in knowing what to attack and what to ignore.
You learn to deal with a lot of issues by placing a simple stone on your
chest. People will get tramples over… ignore. People will get a raw deal…. Ignore.
You can’t change everything. You can’t run with a load of everyone on your
back. You cant protect every weak guy. Two things – number one – the weak guy
will have to learn to defend himself. The same way I did. I was screwed, smashed
and hammered … I got hit, got up and learned to dodge. Better you learn faster
than later. Second – if you try and protect too many people you will get
exposed yourself and in all probability you will drown and take a few more with
you. Simple smarts tell you when to pick which fight.
But yes, it requires you to be cool about things when shit
hits the roof. In extreme stress, shut down. Take an objective call. Take a
fair call. And be cool about it. I am amazed at how much I can just shut off. Simply
shut down that part of the heart which is hurting. Screw you. Stop the brain
from thinking too much about what you have lost and focus on what you can
salvage. It’s the instinct to survive, the instinct to play the longer run
rather than being foolhardy. Short term
bravery can cause serious long term damage. Staying in, grafting slowly,
pushing the right envelope is an acquired skill set. Amongst all this the trick
is not to lose your moral compass. It’s easy to do so and I see people around
me do it all the time. Selfishly sacrificing people, or even killing people for
a sport, they do it all the time. that’s wrong. Sure, life teaches you to be
smart but the way I see it, I may be guilty of inaction, but surely I am guilty
of proactive killing. That’s a wrong thing. I don’t like that and I don’t ever
endorse it.
It’s a fine line. because eth greatest pleasure you get is
when you are taking revenge. Its a human
instinct. But controlling that instinct is as important as anything else. Its also
makes good sense. You gain more from reconciliation than from revenge. Potential
upside is better than certain doom.
Whats et me off thinking in this way was an article I read. There
are a lot of calls to be taken in one’s life. Some involving sacrifing the happiness
of a few to securing that of many. Is that a right thing to do. Are you allowed
to play God. We play God to our kids all the time. we take their calls for
them,. We push them into situations that we think is best for them. But in
offices are you allowed to do that? This is a big question.
There is no easy answer. Yes I am supposed to do that. If someone
in my team is not proving to be a good worker, it sis my job to get him or her
out of the way of those whose passion it is to perform. Ten years back I would
have said otherwise. I would have recommended pulling along dead wood. But again
the culture, the circumstances all matter. If you are too quick to pull dead
wood off the system, this puts a high human cost on the rest. They all would
need to run at all times. They will not trust each other. They will constantly
look over the shoulder and you lose out on various other efficiencies. It’s a very
complicated call. But the only basic truth is – yes, tough calls need to be
taken and they can be taken by putting a stone on your heart.
When Jispa was only a day or two old, we had to pierce her
ears for the earrings. Whose job is it to hold her tight? When she needs an
injection, whose job is it to hold her again. These are similar situations
where being tougher is part of the job. Parenting, along with leading team through a sea full of sharks calls for
tough calls. Emotional calls being tempered by practical day to day calls. Cutting
an arm to save a soul. Current human misery versus POROBABLE future benefit.
I have had to fire people due to recessions. I have done it
twice and both times I remember having to let go of good guys. I did it but I hated
doing it. I try and avoid such situations and hence I always like smaller leaner
teams. You share the rewards and you derisk downturns.
Bottom line – I grew up. Not that I like it or as if I had
an option. But I grew up.
Here is the article I read. It’s funny how close we are to psychopaths at times. Running life is a test in morals and psycho behavior…..
read on
The famous "trolley problem" was a psychological
experiment developed by Philippa Foot that involved a railway trolley headed
toward five people who can't get out of the way. These people will die unless
you, the subject of this experiment, decide to divert the trolley onto another
track. That decision comes with a cost. There is another person stuck on that
track as well, and that person will die. What do you do?
Well, most people have little difficulty making the
"utilitarian" choice of choosing to kill one person instead of five.
However, the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson proposed a variation to the
trolley problem, and the results of this test are quite different.
Thomson's variation is this: "You are standing behind a
very large stranger on a footbridge above the tracks. The only way to save the
five people is to heave the stranger over. He will fall to a certain death. But
his considerable girth will block the trolley, saving five lives. Should you
push him?"
This question was taken up by the Cambridge psychologist Dr.
Kevin Dutton in recent book on psychopaths called The Wisdom of Psychopaths:
What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success. So how do
people with psychopathic tendencies differ from normal people when taking this
test and what does it mean? The results may surprise you.
According to Dutton (citing the Harvard psychologist Joshua
Greene, who observed psychopaths and normal people dealing with this dilemma),
the variation of the trolley problem involves a "personal moral
dilemma" that "hammers on the door of the brain's emotion center,
known as the amygdala." While this dilemma makes normal people
"circumspect and jittery," and 90 percent refuse to push the stranger
off the bridge, Dutton writes that psychopaths, "without batting an eye,
are perfectly happy to chuck the fat guy over the side, if that's how the
cookie crumbles."
In other words, if you, assuming you are a
"normal" reader, are hooked up to an fMRI machine, your amygdala
would "light up like a pinball machine" when presented with the
"personal" version of the trolley dilemma. However, if Dutton
performed the same test on a psychopath, he writes, "I would see only
darkness." The same would be the case if you showed a psychopath images of
famine victims: their brains "merely pull down the emotional window blinds
and implement a neural curfew."
Dutton says there is a benefit to this lack of emotion
expressed in psychopaths if they are -- as crazy as this might seem -- in positions
of leadership. Here's one example, the facts of which have been disputed by
historians, but which nonetheless serves as an illustration of the trolley
problem on a grand scale.
In his book The Ultra Secret, F. W. Winterbotham argued
Winston Churchill knew that the Germans would be bombing Coventry in 1940, but
decided not to alert air defenses because it would have compromised Ultra, the
British intelligence system that would later be credited with making D-Day a
success.
While historians have disputed that Churchill knew the
actual target of the raid was Coventry, this "what-if" history
certainly makes for an interesting psychopath test:
Would you let 568 civilians perish in the raid on Coventry
if that meant many more British soldiers and civilians would ultimately be
saved? What would your brain scan look like when the German bombers flew to
their targets unmolested? That's the kind of question that isn't asked in
presidential debates, but maybe it should.