what you see is what you dont

You see the wiring inside the block that I am holding. Those are the Led lights. They are not there. I mean you see them but they do not exist. Confused? Welcome to office systems, processes and politics.

I like this as a telling example of what shit goes around in offices. When this office was being made the business head came to me to design something interesting as the name plate for the office. So I suggested metal cut letters ona wooden background. Then the business head wanted something even more interesting – so I suggested that we put LED lights under the letters and then allow for a teeny space between the letters and the wood so that they have a background glow. Whatever the business head wants – we give – no matter how ugly or kitsch it may be.

But the admin guy forgot to tell the carpenter that Led lights will be there and therefore he did not keep a provision for the lights and hence the electric connection. The option was to have a new veneer or have a cut in the existing veneer. The new option was expensive and the cut was ugly so we abandoned the light idea. But the admin guy did not tell the block guy so he delivered the blocks with the lights. So now we have the blocks with the lights but no connection to switch on the lights. When the bill came up for processing the admin guy refused to pass the bill with the lights. He reasoning was simple – if the bill ever came up for question, somebody would ask – where  are the lights – please switch them on and he would be unable to do so. So the lights as far as he was concerned were not there. So he passes the bill without the lights. The poor vendor wonders – I did as I was told. But finally he was not paid. Of course he was a regular vendor and he will manage and will make his money from somewhere or the other but the moot point being – the lights are not there. So what you see is a figment of your imagination – because can the lights be turned on? NO. Are they reflecting in the books? NO. Did we pay for them? NO? Nothing. The curious case of the presence of the invisible lights.

Office cultures are crazy, notorious and difficult. It takes a lot of expertise to navigate through this maze. Some manage it beautifully well. They know which side the bread is buttered and act accordingly. It’s crazy what happens. People will have lunch with eth boss, go home with the boss, inform and snitch on colleagues with the boss. I have always refrained from snitching on colleagues. It’s an old trick that some bosses use to fester a climate of ill will and hate. They turn one colleague onto another and ensure a network of spies. When I was much younger I was sucked into this, now I know better. I stay clear from these things and don’t let myself get dragged into this mess.

The mess intensifies the further you are away from home. So if you are someone who has migrated and depend heavily on this job – the fight and the insecurity gets even more nasty. That’s why I guess when Indians go aborad they get very very bitchy and competitive. They don’t have an option. I have learnt that about me as well. When I am secure and that I have another offer, I play well, I play fearlessly and the decisions taken are from a position of strength. They are invariably the right ones. One is able to better play and handle situations correctly. Sometimes I feel that is the one advantage the moderately rich kids have over the lesser kids. When I was starting off in life – it was tough and I had to make it. I was married at a young age and failing was not an option. Life strangled me. The other time was when I had a massive EMI. At the time also risk taking was a non-option. Those are the worst days of office life. Office life is bearable and equally good or bad at all times. Assuming of course we are talking about the same office. Different offices have different levels of politics. But in the same office most of the time the environment is the same. The difference is our ability to control or withstand it. We can better cope if we have options outside. If you are a skill set in demand and you know there is always an option for you – you don’t face these issues. But if you are forced to the wall, you are going to play the bitch!

The only way to constantly have an option is to be a liability light person with adequate investments and most important – constantly upgrade your skill sets. If you have skills sets that are in demand then you have the constant confidence to do better. These come by constantly being paranoid about new things and having a yearning to constantly upgrade. Only if you upgrade will you be able to have the confidence to move and hence the confidence to stay: Opposites reconciling?

Maya

Maya. Commonly understood as illusion. The Wikipedia say thus - Maya or Māyā, in Indian religions, has multiple meanings, usually quoted as "illusion", centered on the fact that we do not experience the environment itself but rather a projection of it, created by us. While this sounds simple enough or complicated enough, depending on your world view, the followings words  are even more obscure “Māyā is the principal deity that manifests, perpetuates and governs the illusion and dream of duality in the phenomenal Universe. For some mystics, this manifestation is real. Each person, each physical object, from the perspective of eternity, is like a brief, disturbed drop of water from an unbounded ocean. The goal of enlightenment is to understand this—more precisely, to experience this: to see intuitively that the distinction between the self and the Universe is a false dichotomy. The distinction between consciousness and physical matter, between mind and body (refer bodymind), is the result of an unenlightened perspective.”

 Wow. I completely skipped that one. For me Maya is simply that there is no absolute truth. Only versions of it. Many times truth twists itself in a manner that is not known to us. I have argued this before on my blog. And I see it everyday in our lives. Most so in office.

Just yesterday I was explaining to someone the absurdity of office situations and the games we end up playing. I read somewhere that ‘a person refuses to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it. Suppose there was an instance where a particular way of showing numbers was proposed to me by my subordinate. But my job depended on not understanding it. I refused. Now one could call me the bad guy. But I knew if I start showing the numbers suddenly in a  new format, the other guys would falsely compare those with the preceding numbers and raise a false alarm. The alarm would be loud enough to set the fire itself, leaving you with another existential question – what came first – the chicken or the egg. So by that logic who is the idiot? Me for refusing to move forward, them – for refusing to see light when I show them statistics or he for not understanding this equation and putting us all in a situation where have to make a call – if we are idiots or not. Where does the buck lie? All are right and all are wrong because for the innocent bystander – YOU, you see the truth. Improve it you say. The right thing to do is always what the right thing is. But what you don’t understand is the chain of repercussions you could start of. So sitting judge on these issues, make you  dear friend, you ARE the idiot. For you haven’t understood the real issues, which are something else altogether. Possibly ‘them’ are under pressure to perform. Possibly ‘them’ see threat from ‘me’. Possibly ‘me’ has conveyed the wrong impression to ‘he’. And possibly ‘he’ is just bugging me to expose the real ‘me’. Who said what is a big question?

Yesterday I was explaining to someone that many times it is stupid to look at the truth in a matter. In office many times, people say something yet mean something else. They will come and tell you what they think they did in a situation. You will get another version from it from someone else. And then the two will conflict in your brain and you will invariably think that one has lied or has betrayed you. The truth is a lot in between. One may have just been misinterpreted or one may have tried to deflect from himself and named you but then made a comeback but the earlier version stuck. What should you do in this case? Should you try to get to the bottom of it all? What will you do digging for truth in a cesspool?  The smart thing is to know what you know and what you don’t. To live with the probabilities of what really happened. Cesspools are murky and opaque. Cleaning them doesn’t do much to anyone. It’s you who gets dirty in the process and it’s you who will get recognized as the one who throws stones in the cesspool.

I was telling Jasmine the same thing the other day. She wanted to clarify something from some other mother. I told wait. What’s it got to do with you? What they did to someone may or may not be without malice but you asking them will surely bring something out in the open. Why confront. What is the objective? What will you achieve? Quietly allowing them to think the way they do doesn’t not really harm you then why do you go for the truth? Why?

Our desire to seek out the TRUE version can only harm us. Because what we get we may not really like. Most of the time I have seen that we only seek to twist what we hear to we want to hear. I have that so many times. I used to counsel a lot of my subordinates and students. Now I don’t get too emotionally attached while doing so. People don’t want to hear the truth (at least your version of it). they want to hear their version of it.

OH DAM IT. this is getting to bloody irritating. Obviously I have seen something in office that has reinforced my belief in Maya and the power of illusions and truth. Two people said something to me. I love them both. I respect them both. The critic may argue that possibly I have no option but to respect them both. My job depends on deeply respecting them, so possibly I respect them. But I believe that both of them have been really nice to me and have helped me. So when I get two versions of truth I am forced to be philosophical. But not for long. I found myself humming this song which liked ever since I heard it. That makes me smile. Humming it to myself. Don’t you always remember the songs you listened to as a kid?

whats riskier? having a home or not having one?

While I was on my reading spree during the recession, I had read an interesting bit of research. Richard Florida was talking about home ownership in cities. His hypothesis was that home ownership for a city is good but to a point. He says “This is so ironic, places with the highest levels of home ownership have low rates of growth; they tend to be older, lagging cities with older economic structures; they tend to be less innovative; they tend to have lower levels of human capital, of creative, economic activity; lower wages, lower incomes; and the people there have lower levels of well-being… by having a lower level of homeownership, and that’s around 50 or 55 percent,… actually makes them quite fast and flexible… If you lose your job in Detroit or Cleveland, you own your house: you’re stuck. You can’t even move to another part of Detroit or Cleveland for a job,… If you work in New York or Los Angeles or San Francisco and you lose your job, first thing you can do is downshift to a cheaper apartment, and if you need to move to a new region, when your lease ends, you can up and go”

I have put the larger extract below and the link to the complete interview. I found it interesting at the point. It did make sense. Flexibility is the key to business and hence growth. Housing is just one big strong element of getting stuck. My own firm, when I see it I realize this. As we get bigger we start getting inflexible. I have seen my management justify the bureaucracy, the willingness to accept it, unwillingness to tear down old practices, unwilling to take risk, having multiple levels of approvals and the sort. I guess a lot of it is possibly good. We are of course less tolerant of failure. The cost of failure is possibly too high. So it makes sense to take a few sturdier steps than big bold initiatives. But I also wonder isn’t a bigger firm more resilient to risk. More able to absorb the costs of failure and hence best placed to learn from it.

Smaller growing firms would have people with higher risk taking ability. People who just say ‘chuck it, let’s do it and go ahead’. I used to always say, it’s better to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission. But suddenly larger firms clamp down on all of this. There are too many satraps to break through. Everyone seems to have his own domain which one is encroaching upon. These domains are nebulous and fluid when the organization is geared towards growth and rigid and unaccommodating when the organization is big. Simple things like the laptop brand is also a big issue. I came from one of the smaller divisions (250 employees) of my firm where I wanted a Dell laptop with a very good display. I got it. Here within the same group another division which has 4,000 plus employees, the Dell laptop which I got transferred with, gets undue attention. Here the official brand is Acer and you can’t get anything else. How was I roaming around with a Dell? Oh god man. All in the name of process.

I think process is good. Some things are important but too much process can screw up any initiative. Within my limited understanding and experience, my belief is that even creative can have a process. You must follow process but have the sense to know that the process is path but you are allowed to forge new paths. Logical behavior and thinking is not a barrier for creative. Just because you use the left side of your brain is no excuse for you to not use the right side as well, and vice versa. I think most of us inherently can use both sides well. It’s when we are suddenly rooted for some reason or the other we start exercising one side. The boring regimented predictable side and are impervious to outside thought and action.

I think the rooting of the brain happens when you start having too much at the table at stake. Typically this means a house. See the house by itself seems like an innocuous thing but over here buying a house would mean pledging the next 20 years of your life in equated monthly installments or EMI for short. Once you have EMI’s running, there is no chance that you are going to take risks. You start growing roots around the place. You start making friends, be familiar with the grocer, the milk man, the watchman… you build your life around your commute and then you are finished as a risk taker. Then having the monthly pay check coming in is very very serious business. Why – because the predictable monthly paycheck ties in very well with the infallible predictability of the EMI.

When I bought my first home it was a very fortuitous time. The EMI was at a fixed interest rate and housing prices very low. They were to just start their sky rocketing orbit. My home price has gone up 5 times since I bought it in 2004. At the time I was still ok with the EMI amount. In the slowdown of 2008, I wasn’t worried, I wasn’t scared. I saw my fixed income balance and I saw my liabilities and I slept in peace. Then I went ahead and bought my second larger house. I haven’t ever slept well if I thought about it. Earlier I would be nonchalant in my attitude. I would be able to call a spade a spade, but now I see myself thinking twice. I still try and push the bar but I am careful not to push it carrying my resignation in my pocket. I have become too big in my own life to fail. I have two EMI’s to feed. Hopefully the second house is ready for possession soon enough which would means that I can rent it and it becomes an income stream from an expense stream.

But there are other issues that stop me from taking risk and hence give me limited mobility. Jispa’s school and Matunga gymkhana around which we have revolved our life. Schooling is a huge issue in Mumbai. With a dearth of good schools and at reasonable price points we can’t afford to take risk with schooling. Jispa’s school is impossible to get into. We don’t know how we got through and it was a stroke of good luck. Once when I was offered a job in Europe in the same company I refused, how would I come back and get my daughter reinstated in the same school. It would have been a four to five year stint but how would I come back and fight again for admissions. As a city if we are unable to provide for or encourage good schooling we wouldn’t be able to attract and retain talent. Cities must also fight for talent in similar fashion. Now I understand the value of the Kendriya Vidyalayas that the government set up all over the country giving a uniform education for its entire government staff that would get transferred. Having schooling that is uniform and predictable for the child and the parent is so critical. And of course the gymkhana. Gymkhanas in Mumbai are elitist and restrictive. They open their doors only to members and memberships are limited and are opened only at intervals. Currently the Matunga Gymkhana is open for membership at a steep one million rupees. What the hell. Where does the average person train his daughter or give his kids a decent healthy lifestyle. So thanks to that not only am I rooted as a risk taker, my risk taking has come down to not moving to anywhere further than two kilometers to where I am currently staying. Else the commute and hence the schedule that Jasmine follows everyday will get awry. Wow. Risk aversion has a new meaning altogether.

No wonder I have noticed that even with the same firm, when we Indian go abroad we get highly politicized. We start playing games and we stop taking all kinds of risk. We only start doing stuff that protects our back side. We lick our boss’s derrières and we eschew all bold action. What if things go wrong? We would have to uproot our families from there and come back, in the middle of the school term that too. I saw this in our offices abroad and I saw this in my dad’s stories of when we were in Dubai. The politics is unbearable.

So I kind of agree with Richard Florida. Home ownership kills risk and mobility. We have a deep rooted desire to own our homes and the EMI’s coming with high cost of homes will kill us and our city. Luckily for Mumbai, the saving grace is that we have made renting slightly easier and relatively less risky. The Enforcement of leave and license agreements which are clear and solid has allowed for investors to give their homes on rent. Earlier the laws were completely in favor of the tenant and renting was akin to selling giving rise to a pagdi system in Mumbai. While we were in Dubai, our home was kept closed and locked rather than let out, as we were afraid we would not get repossession of our home when we needed it. No one really benefits from an asset that is underutilized.

I suddenly started thinking about this because of the conversation I had with Jasmine’s cousin. We are all from part of the baniya sect in the Hindu world order. This means we are essentially traders, businessmen by birth. It is our job to trade and to make profit. To be fast and flexible. He said, “us baniya, we should always be ready for mobility. In fact we baniya’s traditionally never bought houses.” I understood what he meant. If a trader is to thrive he must always be mobile, always ready to move to opportunity. Why else would Jasmine’s maternal grand-dad go all the way to Cochin, in an alien culture, to set up business. Her paternal Granddad came from Gujarat to Mumbai to set shop. My grand dad (maternal) went to Burma (Rangoon) to set shop and then came to Mumbai and set up his business. My Paternal Granddad moved from his home in Savarkundla in Gujarat to Mumbai to study and become a Doctor, after which he moved to Gondal in Gujarat to start his dispensary (it’s a business).

And now Jasmine and I are at loathe to even move three kms from our current home. Sheesh. Obviously we are no more baniyas. We have lost risk taking ability. That doesn’t bode well for our family. Or on the contrary it does. Simple predictable lifestyle. The shift from the hunter to the farmer. Possibly parenting is all that in our city. Growing roots. Staying in and withering away. Possibly we are the 55% giving the chance for the rest of the 45% to go out and push the envelope, take risks and be free.

While I was reading on Richard I came across his concept of ‘creative class’. An extract “Florida says that the Creative Class is a class of workers whose job is to create meaningful new forms (2002). It is composed of scientists and engineers, university professors, poets and architects, and also includes "people in design, education, arts, music and entertainment, whose economic function is to create new ideas, new technology and/or creative content” (Florida, 2002, p. 8). The designs of this group are seen as broadly transferable and useful. Another sector of the Creative Class includes positions that are knowledge intensive; these usually require a high degree of formal education (Florida, 2002). Examples of workers in this sector are health professionals and business managers, who are considered part of the sub-group called Creative Professionals. Their primary job is to think and create new approaches to problems. Creativity is becoming more valued in today’s global society. Employers see creativity as a channel for self-expression and job satisfaction in their employees.”

This creative class I see in the suburbs in Mumbai not in town. Town is old money, high rents, old houses and no buzz. Suburbs have buzz, have restaurants opening and closing at will, new ideas and of course the new age of creative people in design, arts and other stuff, pushing the bar.

I end on a story – once I met a friend of mine after a long time. She is in the creative field and her husband was setting up something in IT. they had bought a flat in the suburbs somewhere. While I was talking to her, she told me that the flat was bought on a home loan and then the price of the house had gone up crazy. Then in the middle of it all they thought of selling their home and pocketing cool ten to fifteen lakhs. (ten lakhs = one million). This they would spend a part of it touring Europe (Spain) and then shift to another house on rent. They would save on the EMI every month and pay a lesser rent, as well as have a sustainable life. At first I was appalled. What shit, sell an asset! Then I realised – you are young only once – have fun. And now I realize, selling their home and moving on rent to a smaller, cheaper place, gave them the flexibility to enjoy and follow their dreams. Being unencumbered by the EMI they could start a business and she could work free-lance. They could do something New and Not Conform to boring conformity. They wanted to be the ‘them 45%’ not the ‘us 55%’. I respect that. As a baniya, I genuinely respect that.

Interview on www.bigthink.com with Richard Florida. Full text here: http://www.bigthink.com/ideas/20243

This is so ironic, places with the highest levels of home ownership have low rates of growth; they tend to be older, lagging cities with older economic structures; they tend to be less innovative; they tend to have lower levels of human capital, of creative, economic activity; lower wages, lower incomes; and the people there have lower levels of well-being.

The ones that have lower home ownership, they’re stronger economies, they’re more innovative, they’re higher wages, higher incomes. And I thought about this and it’s not only that those cities are more expensive, right? Los Angeles and New York and San Francisco and Seattle and Boston, they’re not only more expensive, so obviously fewer people can afford houses. Actually by having a lower level of homeownership, and that’s around 50 or 55 percent, where the big, the cities that have a lot have 80. It actually makes them quite fast and flexible. And I find this really interesting. If you lose your job in Detroit or Cleveland, you own your house: you’re stuck. You can’t even move to another part of Detroit or Cleveland for a job, never mind to a place that might have more economic opportunity on the east or west coast. You’re stuck and you’re stuck with that house and you can’t get rid of it and you have to pay for it.

If you work in New York or Los Angeles or San Francisco and you lose your job, first thing you can do is downshift to a cheaper apartment, and if you need to move to a new region, when your lease ends, you can up and go. So I actually believe, the Urban Land Institute says we’re falling in home ownership. We’re going to come down to about, I think, they think, anywhere to about 62 percent, I think we’re going to go a little lower. I think a nice balance is about 55 percent, with the rest of the people renting. I do think we need to reinvent rental housing, though. I think the kind of rental housing we have now, where you go find a landlord on Craig’s List and you get a place and they don’t fix the windows and the dishwasher breaks and you’re doing it; that’s crazy. I think with all the condos that are vacant, in fact, we’re even seeing this in Miami. And I see this when I go to Miami, it’s actually my cycling route. I cycle down through the city and through the City of Miami, into Key Biscayne. You see all the condo towers that went bankrupt, that were distress sales, now being turned to rental. And what’s interesting is you’re renting from a real rental agency, the housing is nice and high quality, but it’s very affordable, lots of people are streaming back into downtown, empty nesters, young people, people with families, more street-level activity.

I even imagine something more than that, where you could sign up with Acme Rental Company, or XYZ Rental Company, and if your job changes in New York, or San Francisco, Toronto where I live, and you want to be closer to where you work, you can switch apartments. Or if you transfer to the West Coast or the Midwest or wherever it is, San Francisco, Chicago, you can basically be part of that rental company’s units there. Some way, and I think with the excess inventory—according to one analysis, we now in the United States have 8 years, 103 months, of excess housing inventory; well, somebody’s got to do something with that. If companies over the course of the reset in an entrepreneurial fashion begin to roll that up, begin to provide mass rental housing, if you will, and what gives me—I talk to a lot of developers and I speak to developers' forums, I was just at the Urban Land Institute: multi-family housing is one place people are actually profitable in.  

And just to spice up things a bit, here is a video I showed to one kid in office today. She went to Vashi station for the first time in her life and was impressed by it. When it was first constructed and Vashi was still a growing far flung suburb of Mumbai, the station won a lot of rave reviews. So much so that this movie song was also shot on location in the station. The actress is actually in the middle of eh song gyrating on the tracks. Development is always Sexy.