Effectual thinking is an entrepreneurial way of thinking - one where you sort of "evolve" your thoughts as you go along... basically, a flexible way of thinking based on new situations/information that develops on a daily basis.
I think this type of thinking is very useful in today's dynamic world. Basically, it means I need to be open to opportunities as the world changes - rather than having FIXED fundas in life. Hmm... now, that is contrary to inherent (solidified) ways of thinking. So, quite a mind-shift needed there.
If there is one single career interest I have, it is FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE. Basically, have enough money to do what you want, when you want without too much bother. This allows a whole lot of flexibility in the choices I make in the future.
So, I guess FLEXIBILITY is the flavor of the season - and hopefully will get internalized in the months to come. So, there.
A good Birthday yesterday! Caught up with old, old pals - the kind of people you catch up with in 5 minutes, even though you are meeting them after many, many months! Now, that I like!
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Monday, December 25, 2006
College Reunion
My college reunion is almost over (or rather, it's already over and I'm still here!). Hardly been 6 months since I graduated, and already the place is almost alien. New faces everywhere, hardly recognisable. And those that are - from my batch - are not there - or just too fleeting. I guess, the pace of life has picked up tremendously, and lives are increasingly becoming more individualistic. It feels nostalgic to be back, but also lonely without the familiarity.
College reunions, in my opinion, should be planned events. Events that will enable alumni to contribute to the current batch or to the institution in some way. The various batches should be interacting with each other, rather than just within your same batch. Somehow, the nostalgia should be mixed with forward-looking, proactive and engaging events or activities.
Anyways, it's almost time to leave for home, from a second home which was very familiar just a few months ago. And life will accelerate once I'm out of here.
College reunions, in my opinion, should be planned events. Events that will enable alumni to contribute to the current batch or to the institution in some way. The various batches should be interacting with each other, rather than just within your same batch. Somehow, the nostalgia should be mixed with forward-looking, proactive and engaging events or activities.
Anyways, it's almost time to leave for home, from a second home which was very familiar just a few months ago. And life will accelerate once I'm out of here.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Change the world? Or exploit its inefficiencies?
Last few days, I've been thinking...
For many years now, I've thought the world needs to change and I can make that happen. For many years, I've thought one single person can change the world. And in the past few months, I've been thinking - why does it need to change at all ? And is it so easy for one man alone to change it?
I think the world has "evolved" over time, not "changed". Change that is slow, sustainable and shaped by multiple events around the world, is evolution. And no one person can ever do that by himself. And the world will continue to evolve as we go along, by many multiple events across the world - some linked, some independent, by many people. There is no point trying to change everything, because that will never happen. The world knows what's good for it, and will continue to evolve based on situations and aspirations of the billions of people that inhabit it.
But should I not bother at all? Nope. I should try and change what I feel strongly about, and what will be the larger good of many people. Only such change will be acceptable, and even then, will be through the actions of multiple people and not one person alone.
On the other hand, there are a lot of inefficiencies in the world. Most common and researched among them is the stock market inefficiency. Now, should I try to change the entire stock market? Nope. The inefficiencies here are meant to be exploited. The inefficiencies here prompt me to use my head, think, play the game and profit from it. Why should I change it when I cannot and when it does not need change? After all, its always inequalities that create opportunities. And these opportunities can be spotted and exploited only if I use my head and open my eyes.
So, its pretty much a balance. Change what I feel strongly about (and have it in me to push the world) - and at the same time, profit from its inefficiencies which I cannot change or do not need to.
For many years now, I've thought the world needs to change and I can make that happen. For many years, I've thought one single person can change the world. And in the past few months, I've been thinking - why does it need to change at all ? And is it so easy for one man alone to change it?
I think the world has "evolved" over time, not "changed". Change that is slow, sustainable and shaped by multiple events around the world, is evolution. And no one person can ever do that by himself. And the world will continue to evolve as we go along, by many multiple events across the world - some linked, some independent, by many people. There is no point trying to change everything, because that will never happen. The world knows what's good for it, and will continue to evolve based on situations and aspirations of the billions of people that inhabit it.
But should I not bother at all? Nope. I should try and change what I feel strongly about, and what will be the larger good of many people. Only such change will be acceptable, and even then, will be through the actions of multiple people and not one person alone.
On the other hand, there are a lot of inefficiencies in the world. Most common and researched among them is the stock market inefficiency. Now, should I try to change the entire stock market? Nope. The inefficiencies here are meant to be exploited. The inefficiencies here prompt me to use my head, think, play the game and profit from it. Why should I change it when I cannot and when it does not need change? After all, its always inequalities that create opportunities. And these opportunities can be spotted and exploited only if I use my head and open my eyes.
So, its pretty much a balance. Change what I feel strongly about (and have it in me to push the world) - and at the same time, profit from its inefficiencies which I cannot change or do not need to.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Family-owned companies in India
If one thinks of Indian companies, the immediate names coming to mind are: Birla, TATA, Reliance, Godrej, Bajaj, etc. All family-owned companies.
Why are family-owned companies in India so famous and succesful and others like MNCs, private-public partnerships not so? Some answers could be found by analyzing the cultural dimension first.
With families, business is discussed around the dinner tables, thus grooming the next generation of leaders from childbirth - hence, a stronger, more dedicated management.
Also, families are much more careful with their finances and have the ability to take much more longer term bets with their money, than other companies who have to constantly fight for shareholder approvals, etc, since a dip in short-term revenues/profits may slam the brakes on any longer-term venture.
I also think the close-knit "connections" which influential families have with the administrators, could help drive legislation, bend the rules, and remove impediments to business faster than going down the legal route.
And when it comes to diversification, families easily transfer skills across the enterprise, since it's the "big picture" they are concerned with, rather than other companies where turf-wars, politics at the workplace, and "whats-in-it-for-me" attitudes restrict flexibility.
Maybe more reasons are there, and it needs to be given some thought... Hmm....
Why are family-owned companies in India so famous and succesful and others like MNCs, private-public partnerships not so? Some answers could be found by analyzing the cultural dimension first.
With families, business is discussed around the dinner tables, thus grooming the next generation of leaders from childbirth - hence, a stronger, more dedicated management.
Also, families are much more careful with their finances and have the ability to take much more longer term bets with their money, than other companies who have to constantly fight for shareholder approvals, etc, since a dip in short-term revenues/profits may slam the brakes on any longer-term venture.
I also think the close-knit "connections" which influential families have with the administrators, could help drive legislation, bend the rules, and remove impediments to business faster than going down the legal route.
And when it comes to diversification, families easily transfer skills across the enterprise, since it's the "big picture" they are concerned with, rather than other companies where turf-wars, politics at the workplace, and "whats-in-it-for-me" attitudes restrict flexibility.
Maybe more reasons are there, and it needs to be given some thought... Hmm....
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Tata car plant in Singur
The controversy on the car plant in Singur, West Bengal is on my mind. Once again, a classical conflict between those who dont want to change, those who want to, and of course - the politician steps in to light the fire.
Now, thinking through this and other similar resistances-to-change... The farmers need to realize that one cannot stop change in this country or elsewhere...its a rolling juggernaut that will not stop come what may. On the other hand, the Tatas cannot think they can pay a lumpsum and solve the problem overnight.
The farmers have been farming for many years..they do not know any other skill. The money paid for the land will be spent on the house, marriages, treating the sick, etc..and before they know it, they'll be penniless. Since they know no other skill, the farmer will be on the streets before the next year. What corporates and the government need to realize is that although change is un-stoppable (and it should be) - one cannot be expected to change overnight. One possible solution is to pay the farmers a monthly salary for the next 5 years (totalling the lumpsum they are paying now) and in the meantime educate/train the farmers on other skills - carpentry, weaving, etc, etc. Thus, the farmer gains an assured livelihood for next few years and in the meantime prepares himself for another means of livelihood 5 years hence. Enough time to pick up a new skill, and also in the meantime live a regular life.
Adaptive change.
Simple to accept and implement for both sides? - I think so.
Now, thinking through this and other similar resistances-to-change... The farmers need to realize that one cannot stop change in this country or elsewhere...its a rolling juggernaut that will not stop come what may. On the other hand, the Tatas cannot think they can pay a lumpsum and solve the problem overnight.
The farmers have been farming for many years..they do not know any other skill. The money paid for the land will be spent on the house, marriages, treating the sick, etc..and before they know it, they'll be penniless. Since they know no other skill, the farmer will be on the streets before the next year. What corporates and the government need to realize is that although change is un-stoppable (and it should be) - one cannot be expected to change overnight. One possible solution is to pay the farmers a monthly salary for the next 5 years (totalling the lumpsum they are paying now) and in the meantime educate/train the farmers on other skills - carpentry, weaving, etc, etc. Thus, the farmer gains an assured livelihood for next few years and in the meantime prepares himself for another means of livelihood 5 years hence. Enough time to pick up a new skill, and also in the meantime live a regular life.
Adaptive change.
Simple to accept and implement for both sides? - I think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)