Experience is the biggest asset a manager has on his side. As much as I learn the nuances of "business" and "management" at my MBA course (the PGSEM) at IIMB, nothing will ever be able to take the place and role that time learned experience would play in shaping the characteristics i would like to develop as a good manager (and leader).
I believe that making the right decisions in the face of available trade-offs will always be an art that will be the most visible source of differentiation between managers!
Simply put, trade-offs are choices that need to made between available alternatives in scenarios where the consequences of the choice that is made is not fully known. Decision trees have been used extensively in many of my classes to define evaluation of alternatives at decision points in a business flow. It all looks hunky-dory in a classroom scenario where the consequences at each decision point are well defined and the end result neatly mapped out by the professor on the whiteboard!In the real world, there is absolutely no way of knowing the consequences of each decision! Not only are the consequences not well defined, it is also impossible to really know the full breadth of alternatives that can be taken at a decision point.
As we move deeper into the information world, it is not the owner of the cache information who has the ultimate edge as a manager, rather the one who knows how best to derive results from that huge cache of information that holds to key to future managerial success.
My management education provides me the tools and frameworks that help in gathering the required knowledge and information along with the partial ability to derive some form of results from the information that is gathered. However it has to be experience that will enable me to take the right choice more often.
Given that experience is time bound, i am reminded of the classic dilemma that a fresh graduate faces. Every employer wants to recruit someone with a minimum threshold of experience for exciting roles that involves certain amount of responsibility. A fresh graduate wants an exciting job of responsibility, and is possibly capable of it, but has no way to satisfy the "experience" requirement of the potential employer.
If I were to draw parallels, as a manager, the ability to make the right decision choice (in a world of imperfect information) would rest largely on experience gained while having made a large number of decisions in the past. Failure is but a small price I will have to pay in order to gain the "experiential wisdom" that I require for the long run. I will have to take risky choices knowing that the consequences may or may not be favorable, and not be afraid while facing the consequence.
Random thoughts, observations and possible balderdash ... All work is (C) Amith Dsouza 2020
Showing posts with label Corporate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporate. Show all posts
Monday, July 13, 2009
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Gandhian Thoughts
I had a chance to attend the Gandhi Colloquium at IIM Bangalore. The theme of the colloquium was “Gandhi, Governance and the Corporation”. I was impressed by some of the thoughts that the eminent speakers (Prof Dwijendra Tripati, Prof N Balasubramanian, Prof Peter DeSouza, Prof Pratap Bhany Mehta) put forth as a part of the introductory session in the morning.
Key takeaways from the lectures:
- Gandhian philosophies have not had a widespread acceptance in the corporate world
- The philosophy of trusteeship is focal point for corporate embracement of Gandhian thought
- Trusteeship involves a sense of debt to society; an organization exists to serve the society and the context of the society in which it exists
- Gandhi believed that an individual or a corporation had to earn just as much as was “reasonably” required and any amount earned in excess of this was expected to be returned to the society, since it was “excess” wealth that was accumulated unduly and it belonged to the society and not the corporation or the individual (Contrast this with socialism, looks like Gandhi’s philosophy was geared towards voluntary actions for equitable distribution of wealth unlike the “socialist” thought of Government enabled distribution of wealth!)
- Gandhi was perhaps the only political figure who was aware of the communal tinderbox that India could evolve into at the time of independence
- Gandhi placed a great emphasis on the aspect of friendship, friendship across groups to which an individual belonged
I find myself resonating with a lot of the thoughts that were put forth. I believe that socialism, an excellent concept, can never be imposed. Voluntary socialism as espoused by the “trusteeship” philosophy is perhaps sustainable. It is perhaps necessary that this philosophy is inculcated as a way of life in Indian society. Is it going to be successful? Gandhi was convinced that it would succeed, yet today 50 years after his death there is still no clear answer. Even I am not fully convinced of the efficacy of “trusteeship”.
To get a wider perspective on trusteeship:
http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhiphilosophy/philosophy_trusteeship.htm
Summed up in one paragraph:
“Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honorable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.”
Key takeaways from the lectures:
- Gandhian philosophies have not had a widespread acceptance in the corporate world
- The philosophy of trusteeship is focal point for corporate embracement of Gandhian thought
- Trusteeship involves a sense of debt to society; an organization exists to serve the society and the context of the society in which it exists
- Gandhi believed that an individual or a corporation had to earn just as much as was “reasonably” required and any amount earned in excess of this was expected to be returned to the society, since it was “excess” wealth that was accumulated unduly and it belonged to the society and not the corporation or the individual (Contrast this with socialism, looks like Gandhi’s philosophy was geared towards voluntary actions for equitable distribution of wealth unlike the “socialist” thought of Government enabled distribution of wealth!)
- Gandhi was perhaps the only political figure who was aware of the communal tinderbox that India could evolve into at the time of independence
- Gandhi placed a great emphasis on the aspect of friendship, friendship across groups to which an individual belonged
I find myself resonating with a lot of the thoughts that were put forth. I believe that socialism, an excellent concept, can never be imposed. Voluntary socialism as espoused by the “trusteeship” philosophy is perhaps sustainable. It is perhaps necessary that this philosophy is inculcated as a way of life in Indian society. Is it going to be successful? Gandhi was convinced that it would succeed, yet today 50 years after his death there is still no clear answer. Even I am not fully convinced of the efficacy of “trusteeship”.
To get a wider perspective on trusteeship:
http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhiphilosophy/philosophy_trusteeship.htm
Summed up in one paragraph:
“Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honorable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)