The Value of Recognition

In the Oscar winning film ‘A Beautiful Mind’ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268978/), John Nash pleads before Prof Helinger at Princeton for more time to submit his paper. ‘What do you see, John?’ the prof points at an ongoing ceremony honouring a fellow professor for his lifetime achievement. ‘Recognition’, honest answer. ‘Well, try and see accomplishment’, snaps the professor. ‘Is there a difference?’ asks John, pointing that the important distinction between these two terms is lost to this world.

Indeed, recognition and accomplishment, although not the same, get diffused into each other more often than not. It always feels great when I am rewarded for an achievement, regardless of whether I may have thought much of it myself. On the other hand, I start questioning wins that I don’t find being received as much as I had expected. I think that’s natural, and it only makes me human, nothing wrong with that. But, does it mean accomplishment is supposed to be measured by the scale of its acceptance and reward? What then is accomplishment, in its absolute sense?

Take writing, for instance. The freely accessible online platforms have made the term ‘published author’ redundant. There is virtually no need for a publisher’s endorsement before content reaches its readers. The space is as crowded as it could get. It would be almost discouraging for anyone to start writing with the goal of creating a best-seller in the first attempt. What is the motivation then for so many to plunge into it, knowing they’d have a tough time rising above the rest? It could be the subject, the drive to share knowledge with others, the enrichment in the process or plain love for writing or expressing ideas. These are signs of a pursuit for true accomplishment.

The world of business, consumers and brand, on the other hand, rests on the bedrock of ‘perceived’ value. Success here lies in how uniquely valuable your product is deemed by the consumers. The top line of your profit statement is a number, but it could have been zero if you didn’t make people recognize the value you bring through your business’s offerings, enough for them to buy. So isn’t recognition the defining factor for accomplishment here? I say it’s not, because accomplishment for a for-profit business, as a whole, lies not in the products it develops, not even in the love for its brand it enjoys--it lies in the wealth it creates for its stakeholders. That value is real, in black and white, undeniable and unambiguous. Everything else is just a means to that end.

Accomplishment is hence absolute. Some define it as the satisfaction when you just instinctively know you have ‘created’ or ‘discovered’. It’s that thing which keeps you going until your creation is ready to take to the world! It could be a picture you have clicked, a story you have written or a product idea you have worked hard to bring to daylight, you just know it. Its greatness is not relative to anything else. It is just being greater than you have ever got, coming farther than you have ever before. Recognition only follows.

Nice to hear, but is it practical in a world of interdependence? Can there be a non-utopian state when there is no value of recognition?  What will happen to learning and improving from feedback, what will it be like without the most respected business tycoons and the most celebrated artists? What would stars be without their fans? Perhaps the only possible answer is, it should only matter to the fans, not to the stars! 

When John Nash finally came up with his original idea, it refuted over a century of economic theory, and successfully so. It didn’t matter what anyone said, he had proved he was right. Decades later, he was awarded the Nobel for the same breakthrough. Did that make his accomplishment any greater than it was already?

How bad, I didn't start up!

OK, so I was selected at the B-school of my dreams and all that, a few years ago. Before the joining date, with terrific enthusiasm, we (all the excited future fellow batch mates and I) went to campus to hear some golden words from our seniors--people who had all been there and done it--and to, you know, network (yeah, verb). Some are great entrepreneurs and some call the C-Suite of big enterprises their den today. Among all the other pieces of great words and valuable advice, the one that came across as most striking was 'Dude, once you graduate from here, don't get into a job, you are supposed to ‘create’ jobs now, you know!'

For some unknown reason, that never fit into its place in my brain. Soon I forgot about it and carried on with the bigger challenge at hand, the subjects to learn at the course. 'If that was so easy to realize on day one, why would someone be going through the rigor of this life changing experience called MBA. Just give it some time and it will come to you", I thought.  Of course I didn't create jobs after graduating, I just got myself one happily. "Wow, I know a lot about organisational behavior now, let me learn something on the ground and I can create jobs later for all the virtue that’s attached to it". I am still wondering if that was an excuse, because I am not willing to accept someone can procrastinate being an entrepreneur. Those two things don't go together in a lifetime, they say. 

Recently, I was reminded of it again, when one of my fellow batch mates posted a job requirement for a company he founded less than a year ago. Now I had to find an answer to get me some peace of mind, it just wouldn't let me be. And, I have just found one this morning! I still don't know if it makes any sense, but what the heck, it serves its purpose.

And the answer is , "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". (It’s the law of reciprocity, a law!) I have been doing a job until now only because someone created it right? I don't know if this is only another way I have found to be free of some guilt for not creating jobs, and maybe someday (or later today) I’ll laugh at myself for misinterpreting a law, but at the moment it makes perfect sense to me. Why subject others to do something you want to get out of yourself, just because it's not that high a pursuit anymore? 

Having said that, I have nothing against all the great people in the world who created employment for large populations and made sure a million men had a roof and bread for their families, I am no one to even judge them. Also, here is all due respect to those who have joined the start-up bandwagon. (I have a very different issue with the whole concept of employment by the way, but save it for another day.) However, I am clear of one thing, that no set criterion in the world makes you eligible or ineligible to create a job. Even creating is a job after all, no matter whom you are doing it for!

Lessons in communication, from singing, yet again

Ever been on the receiving end of some top of  the voice singing by someone with headphones on, those noise cancelling ones at that? Torture, and at best, noise, if its a good singer. Even playback singers, technically the best singing lot, have those half-headphones covering only one ear while they sing. It is not possible for anyone to hit that perfect note without being able to hear their own voice.

So whats the big deal about that now? If you can't hear yourself singing, its not singing, 'simple as that! But think about it. Even when you sing without the headphones on, what you receive in your brain, is a playback of the soundtrack, with the lyrics, beats and pitch from your memory, superimposed by your own voice singing. The effect is as good as having headphones on while singing, and it can be of all variety from noise to torture for your poor audience, who only have your voice playing to their ears and brain.

To get better at singing, hence, even before you come to quality of voice or pitch,  you need to hear how your own voice 'comes across' to someone listening to your performance. For that you need to eliminate your preconceived, memorized and wired version of the track from playing to you.  That is the first milestone, to come any closer to becoming a good performer.

In a strange analogy, so it is with all social and interpersonal interactions too. Haven't we heard the 'stepping into others shoe' and 'thinking from someone else's point of view' or 'putting into perspective', more often than not in just about any wisdom on effective communication? They never drove the point so hard for me, unlike the lesson from singing did. Its all about turning off your notions, biases and 'wiring' when you interact, its about turning off the headphones.

Just knowing how you come across when you speak, convey and behave, wins you half the battle in communicating effectively and objectively with about anyone. Making your audience feel more engaged to what they hear you say, and it may be anything from a single person to a stadium then, it doesn't matter. You will know whether what you are saying is music or noise, it will be exactly what you want to be heard as saying.

But wish it was so simple, and again that explanation comes from a twist in the analogy. They say, humans, and in fact all living beings with sound receptive abilities, are tuned to identify certain combinations of sound frequencies as music. In fact, that is the definition of music. It is not the same though with interpersonal communication. Every shoe is different, every point of view is liable to be colored and influenced just so much as the speaking, and even the audience can have headphones that don't let them hear what you are saying.

Nevertheless, being able to perceive how I come across has helped me come a long way from where I was in my interpersonal skills, and is for me one of the several boons that music has blessed me with. 

May the 'Truth' prevail

Truth prevails. In the battle of truth and fallacy, only truth prevails. But hold on, how do you verify that, or can you? Truth can only be verified against its relative opposite!! History is written by the one who prevails, who wins the battle. Why will the prevailer not say truth was with me? Why will he not lie? Who is there to stop him? No one, and nothing, because thats how he had won, by killing the opponent.

The winner writes history, and history has always been an account of the glory of the one who survived the battle. And in a battle, only one side survives. 'History is a one sided account', to quote Dan Brown.

So, truth doesn't prevail, rather, what prevails becomes the truth, and is been made to be the truth. And that is the reason even history is relative. For instance, Indians look at the revolt of 1857 against British colonists as a war for independence, a war of bravery to win back their motherland from aliens. And what do the British call it? They call it 'The great rebellion' against a stable and peaceloving government. If you don't believe me, visit the War Museum at Leeds, UK. While it is debatable who really won at the end of it, only one of the two sides can be with the Truth, isn't it?

So, truth prevails, but it is easy for anything to become the truth if there is nothing and no one to challenge. And that is how truth has been prevailing in our world. It goes on to say all that happens beneath our staunchly propogated feel good, 'Satyameva Jayate'.

Give 'whom' a chance?

Peace is a dangerous passion to have. Paradox? Remotely. If you are obsessed with the idea of peace, you are making enemies with those who do not want peace. And to the incomprehensible things that people do to destroy peace, killing you will hardly add anything. It will not matter to them. Now you know why it is dangerous to want peace? It's not that destroying peace is any safer, but then, it is supposed not to be, because you have to and should be paying for destroying peace, in kind. But should wanting peace be dangerous? Whether it should or not, I do not know, but I know that it IS. Gandhi was killed. Do you want peace? The first agreement you need to come to is you will have to give away your piece of peace. And it’s not always about killing, and not about world peace either. Sometimes you seek peace with your friends, your family, and the same rule applies. Wanting peace is dangerous. Isn't it? Therefore, to do justice to your passion for peace, it is essential to have the courage to see it destroyed. It's that tough

Serving Time

What does the prisoner lose, and keep losing for all his term in the prison? Freedom? Yes,
but isnt he going to be free after the term? What is he losing then? What is he serving?
What is the lack of his freedom bound to? TIME, isn't it? He is serving time. A time he will
lose doing not a thing that counts toward the progress of his life, toward the well being of
himself and his people. It is the penultimate punishment for the most heinous of crimes in
the world, the ultimate being denial of the right to live.

When it is considered to be such a big loss to have lost time, why do we waste time? Why
don't we take a step back to think where we are going, are we moving at all, and in what
direction? We are serving time, just like a prisoner, in the precise sense of imprisonment,
with the only difference that we have chosen to serve time. There is hardly anything more
pathetic than this. This is the cause of every impression of worthlessness and sorrow. The
absence of a sense of improvement, the ceasing of evolution.

When you cannot utilize time to take yourself into a better state than you were, it is
unconsciously obvious to everyone around you that you can never benefit or guide
others--that you can not serve the basic purpose of being social.

I do not mean to sound patronising, and I AM sincerely trying to mind my language. Here, I
have just tried to point out one of the reasons that I feel are behind the want of social
acceptance that many of us suffer from, and how it is linked to the way we use our own time.
I only mean to ring a bell.