Tuesday, August 30, 2011

How to attempt smooth execution

  1. Listen 
  2. Note
  3. Clarify the meanings of words heard and noted, with one and all
  4. Prepare a list of things
  5. Prepare a list of activities which will take place and order them in sequence
  6. Prepare a list of people
  7. Share all the lists with one and all
  8. Decide who is going to handle what things and what activities
  9. Arrange No.8 in order and prepare a note
  10. Share a copy of the note prepared in No.9 with one and all
Notice that all execution is an interspersing of efforts in solitude and sharing. Won't go wrong if you intersperse well. Try.

--- 8 -- 8 ---

Want this blogger to help you with strategy execution? Write to sidsoni at gmail dot com.

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Where's the hunger?

A friend, who has been handling recruitment at one of the big organizations, observes primarily in organizations there is a failure in treating candidates with dignity. No wonder, when they are hired the organization doesn't really get the desired results.

Organizations probably do that to get an upper hand in negotiations. Perhaps drag down the compensations. They are 'human resources' after all. Cost-heads. Bring the costs down and add to profits.

I have sought many a job in my not so long corporate career and I can say this. There are organizations that seek the 'hungry' and then do what I wrote above. There are other organizations which seek the 'hungry' and reward them positively.

There's another breed apart from the 'hungry' though. They aren't hungry. They thrive on response, reciprocation and respect. When they find the organization responding and reciprocating, they give more out of their heart, producing almost as if stuff coming out of a magician's hat. I wonder if there are many organizations which realize this and are geared for this.

Friday, August 19, 2011

Talking is work

And I've been a late-latif in that.

If there is any good chance of convincing (for closing a sale) then that comes out of talking. As a grown-up :) I've been an extremely reluctant talker so far, probably coz I was reprimanded in school and at home for talking a lot during my childhood.

But I realize that once you've created a product, the only task that remains is talking and talking really well. Talking so well that the other person connects with you deeply and genuinely.

And the chances we get to talk are invaluable. I wonder what are we making out of it.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Who takes the decisions?

You learn by taking decisions.

You learn by solving problems.

On most occasions, decisions solve problems.

Who takes the decisions? Who is learning?

Some pics of my Yamaha FZ16, the cruiser!

Look good, no? :)

It's a looker from all angles.

Slightly changed angle. The bike looks meaty. Hunk keeps talking. This one's understated and yet commands a presence.

I think very few bikes match the stance that FZ offers. It corroborates the claim 'Lord of the Streets'. More than that, the stance also makes riding extremely easy and pleasurable. I would venture to say that the stance itself makes this bike so fit for cruising - far better than Avenger 200 which I used to own at one point in time. I owned a Bullet Machismo as well some 3 years back and I can say that the stance of this bike is better than that offered by a Royal Enfield Classic or even an Electra. Don't believe me? Check them out.

Bullet, I must admit, has a lot going for it now. Great looks, great stance, much better engine and the greatest sound. Avenger in comparison is diminutive and ridiculous as a cruising machine. In fact, Avenger is a shame. Hopeless braking, rather unbecoming pick-up. The only thing that might appeal to one and all is the look. Power notwithstanding, an FZ offers a far enriching cruising experience than an Avenger. And even when compared with a Bullet, at around 60-65kmph, FZ would fare and feel better as a cruiser.


The bike feels so stable and well-grounded; the word 'Lord' fits so well.

This is my favorite pic!

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Boss is an a**

or something like that if one were to name the feelings of a lot of people working in organizations and who have a boss on top of them.

Organizations can't be termed bad; at best they are only a structure, a framework. We know they are the people who make us feel one way or another.

In fact, life becomes heaven or hell depending on your equation with the person you are working under/with.

The 'boss is an a**' problem arises when:
  • the boss or the subordinate, does not have talent (or thinks that the other doesn't have talent)
  • the boss or the subordinate, does not have skills (or thinks that the other doesn't have skills)
  • the boss or the subordinate, does not know how to communicate (or thinks that the other doesn't know how to communicate)
For those who've had bosses know bosses aren't any better. Nor are they any better who think that bosses aren't any better! 

Does the boss deserve the subordinate? Does the subordinate deserve the boss? How does this frequent mismatch be avoided/resolved?

The french origin of the word 'interview' is 'entrevue', verbal noun from s'entrevoir "to see each other, visit each other briefly, have a glimpse of." Unfortunately, we are so far down the road that to make organizations re-evaluate the meaning of 'interview' could be an exercise like diving into a pitless bottom.

So now? 

Here's a suggestion, a possible solution: 

When an organization posts an ad to recruit a 'passionate' employee, it would also give a measure of the passion of the person who's gonna be the boss of this employee.

When it posts an ad to recruit a 'creative' person, it would also give a measure of the creativity of the person who's gonna be the boss of this person.

When an organization posts an ad to recruit a man with 'sound communication skills', it would also give an idea of the soundness of the communication skills of the one who is going to boss around. 

Basically, it's the boss description that matters more. Job description is a necessary condition. But boss description is the decisive condition.

Do this and the number of applications might decline. But there's every likelihood that relevant applications might fly in.

Gives me an idea to develop an online app! Hurry!

Heart on my sleeve

When I was preparing for my MBA entrance tests, I wrote answers to a few important and essential questions, the ones typically asked during interviews and sometimes while filling the application forms.

On checking the answers, one of my guides quipped, "don't always wear your heart on your sleeve." It implied that I wouldn't make a great impression.

I remembered that.

But what if I learned the most profound business and management lesson out of my failed relationship? And that's the truth, mind you.

Having said that, I still wonder if a management institute would entertain a 'true sulking romantic dishing out management lessons learned out of a break-up' :).

I used to feel so embarrassed earlier (even asked myself if I was making a mistake or what), when I would talk about my girl-friend or my break-up. :) Ridiculous! I suppose I made some good friends out of those conversations.

Anyway, I wear my heart on my sleeve. Sometimes fold it too. Marketing myself. Managing. Surviving.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

"Hard Work"

When I hear the words "hard work" or "work hard", I conjure up images of intense physical labor and toil. Is my perception commonly shared? If yes, in that case, if I have to convey "intense mental work/labor, work of real thinking or insight", what should the words be?

Doctors as clients

Doctors will always be needed. Never will doctors not be a 'need'. Indispensable they are. This indispensability (and the 'life-saving' aspect of it) makes people view doctors as noble.

But the few doctors I've consulted and talked with makes me infer that it is this very 'indispensability' that fills them with hubris. Let me list down the elements of this hubris:
  • I deserve everything
  • I know everything
  • I can buy everything
  • I can manage everything
Unfortunately, these are some diseases suffered by a lot of people. Perhaps most, at one or the other time. The only thing is, lesser mortals realize it very often and sort it out within themselves. But with doctors, it could be tough; for they see themselves as ones who treat others and, therefore, ones who are beyond treatment (Godly wouldn't be wrong!).

Anyway, I wonder if the misconceptions stem from the fact that medical practice relies so much on memory and dexterity of hands; reading people's minds and mapping their ways of thinking and behaving is something else. In that, doctors aren't faring any better, if not worse.