Multi-tasking, some clarification

Image source: wikipedia

A lot of us who've tried being superheroic, and tried doing things in a way that we become worthy of this appellation called 'multi-tasker', would relate to what I have found out.

For example, ever tried talking on the mobile phone or answering someone's call while brushing your teeth full of froth. How does it feel, this attempt to multi-task?

But let's say your mouth is full of froth and foam, and for a couple of minutes you ignore the call or the mobile phone ring. And once you are done with rinsing your mouth, you get to answering the call or talking on your mobile phone. How does that go?

To understand multi-tasking in the truest sense, determine whether the two/more tasks are meant to happen at the same point in time or in a sequence over a little stretch of time.

My anxious attempts at doing it the first way have put me in such inelegant spots and situations that I don't want to share them here. Currently, I am occupied with the second kind. And that is proving very very tiring.

Two more points.

Those who have developed this ability to multi-task over a stretch of time, I reckon, have mastered a very crucial skill.

Actually, a better term than multi-tasking is juggling. Conceptually and sonically, both.

Where should a big hospital be run from?

Hospital is a contingency business. I mean, the consumer of a hospital is always in trouble. And 'what's the need' is a forgone question, though of course needs careful consideration.

How do we behave when in immediate trouble, emergency or dire need?

Unfortunately, a lot of hospitals took a leaf from the general assembly line management system and got it all wrong. (When I say that, I am aware of certain hospital which used assembly line management to great effect.) Yes, the ones who got it wrong are the ones who made secluded chambers for managers responsible to take care of the operations. They made nodes which would be far from where the consumer(patient) would typically rush in. They made the team wait at these nodes where the consumer(patient) would typically find it difficult to reach.

Unlike a grand monumental atrium-like central empty space available at different places to make the visitor feel good, a hospital has to have the pilot and his entire team right where the consumer first walks in. Yes, right at the first touch-point. Empty spaces help the movement but slowly kill the guy in pain.

Egos would not let the above happen. Perhaps then, the most responsible person who's supposedly called the COO and his entire team meant to deliver care, has to be right where this patient walks in. Mind you, not just that one person. His entire care-team.

And then see if a hospital is any less enjoyable and any more difficult to manage than other places.

Platform, website, presence

As more people on the web have come to know of Mississippi Earrings, we face these questions more frequently now:

• Are your products available on the net?
• Do you have an online shop?
• Are you selling online?
• Why don't you sell online?
• Why don't you set up an online platform?
• Do you have a website?
• What's the name of your website?

All questions look apparently the same. But if one were to get very specific about the meanings of each of the words in these questions, one would have to make very very deliberate and different choices than the answers that some questions lead one into.

Like for example, for the first question, I would have to answer, "Yes, designs are available on the net."

For the second, third and fourth questions, "No, we don't have an online shop. But we try to sell through the online medium and we do makes sales through the online medium."

Fifth question. Online platform to sell? More important is online presence so that friends and others remember us when they are buying jewelry. Platform is infrastructure, not an aid to memory unfortunately.

Sixth, yes we have a blog. Website still doesn't fit into our scheme of things. Can you see the website out there standing tall, a landmark, among the nondescript buildings? :)

Seventh, what's the name of our earrings?

Why MBAs so often suck?

Because the guys tried memorizing from the textbooks and then cleared the exams to get the MBA certifications.

Textbooks are like ready-made gourmet platters. The metaphor sounds nice until we realize that gourmet can still find good space in a stomach and be digested. If only one could lick up the words and store them in the memory bin to be digested. Mighty difficult. Digestion in the head takes doing things with hands, legs and heads together and associating the words and concepts neatly explained and organized in the textbook with the sequentially messy things happening in the world outside the textbook. This kind of digestion is painful.

MBAs, by and large, don't remember all of the textbook. Besides, they typically find it difficult to move hands, legs and heads together in any kind of rhythm. Besides lack of rhythm, all want insane amounts in salaries for that very special exhibition of lack of rhythm.

Everyone's watching.

CEO or CDO?

If ever the annals of 'words that obscure understanding' is written, then this word/term will surely feature: CEO. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

Ever wondered why work isn't satisfying? Even the kind of work that you really love? Even the kind of work that you really love in an organization/team that you really love?

The term that really hides behind the term CEO is CDO. CHIEF DECISIVE OFFICER. The guy who decides has to deliver. So has to move his ass and kick others' ass. It is the moving and kicking of asses that really gave birth to EXECUTIVE, that really made EXECUTIVE substitute DECISIVE.

But the cost of that substitution has been humungous. Satisfaction out of work.

For the organization it served good political purposes. For really, if it comes to the pin on the point, there can only be one decision and one decision-maker. And the person decision-maker has to take responsibility of all that gets executed for the decision taken. It takes balls to take responsibility. Metaphorical balls. Most fail to muster that. So meeting rooms and committees and such. On occasions when someone with balls shows up, things really change.

Try being the CDO. You'll fail. You'll succeed. You'll meddle. You'll learn. You'll get better. Every single time, a substantial leap.

How long should a table be?

8 feet.

Left-hand-side half for laptop, printer and whatever other gadgets. Right-hand-side half to place open notepads, books or magazines. The arrangement might be the other way round for those writing with left hand.

1.5 ft for printer. 6 inches of empty space. Then, 2 ft for laptop+mouse. 4 ft. in total for gadgets. Remaining 4 ft. for the real things.

Try this if you have that kind of space and you'll see how efficiency improves. Mind you, this is the work-space. Stock-space should be considered separately.

It's a machine after all

I'm talking about software programs and platforms. Martjack and many such ready e-commerce platforms say, set up your shop in a few minutes. And after that what?

It's a widely prevalent notion that set up an e-commerce shop and it's all done. E-commerce in general is growing and so orders will flow in.

Platforms are nothing but engines or machines. They consume energy, effort and skills. And informational engines are more complex than any other type. There's a learning curve to using these platforms and becoming efficient.

After the deployment of such a machine, there's still the big question. Who's gonna buy from your shop? For though google's working, it's working for all others as well. And it's working big time for the leaders who have learned and have been running the engines ever more efficiently and effectively. There was a time when merely deploying the engine would ensure some good results. But that was when there was a scarcity of such engines in the first place. Now it's all common.

The challenge again is one of connection. How? With whom? When? If this is the real challenge, I suggest do not deploy any such engines. Don't waste your time on learning machines. Instead, use the simplest and most flexible tool available and showcase your stuff in as easy a manner as possible. And spend great effort and time in connecting.

Managing the 'e' in e-commerce

Even as I try to get missi.in going, I realize it's a very different ball game and it's a mammoth challenge.

The thing is all about that 'e'.

It means we need to have good photography skills for good visual merchandising on the web.

It means we need to be good at graphic design; that in turn means we need to be good at certain popular graphic design software.

It means we need to be in general very good at structuring information.

It means we need to be good at coding.

It means we need to be good at writing.

It means we need to be good at interacting.

It means we need to be extremely good and we need to be real fast along with being good.

How many years of experience do you have?

That's the question typically asked in interviews for any job, barring the situations when you're just fresh out into the job market.

Two parts of experience: applied skills and knowledge (in the context of the domain one is seeking to get a job in). Of course, the two are entwined and one helps the other. Knowledge would rely more on the applied skills than the other way round. So the greater the application of skills, the greater the knowledge.

So here are some issues in measuring 'experience'.

When testing a person during the interview, a great deal depends on the quality of the question itself. And of course quality of question depends on the interviewer's application of skills in turn. If one hasn't spent a significant time applying skills, then one's quality of questions would reflect that. That will also determine the quality of the interview.

And since interviews depend more on exchange of words, it is a challenge for both the parties to capture the 'applicability' into words - whether in questions or answers.

Experience is also a 'stock' question. Like, "How much you have?" And while experience is about applied skills and knowledge, a good measure of 'applied skills' would be how the stock turns into fluid/dynamic state. Again, words might not necessarily suffice. For application spans time and can be better observed in/through action than through a description in words.

Also, since two businesses are bound to be in different and unique situations, the stock of applied skills needs to adjust to these situations. How does one take a measure of such 'adjustment'?

If the organization isn't keen on getting a good measure of your 'applied skills', 3 dominant possibilities: 1) you are going to do the clerical, the repetitive and the laborious, 2) the organization has mastered the art of extracting the 'difficult measurement of applied skills' out of the words people use, 3) the one responsible for interviewing is inept.

Interviewer asks, "So why Mississippi Earrings?"

On occasions, when I've applied/pitched for some interesting job or assignment and people check my CV and ask me about what I am doing currently, and I tell them that I've set up a venture of my own called Mississippi Earrings, I've received some of the funniest responses.

Some are astonished: EARRINGS!!! MICA Grad, Communications pro, and earrings!
Some ask, how is it doing? If I say it's doing decent, they ask, so why a job now?
Some ask, but why did you venture on your own?

Such questions. I pity these folks who have very little to ask but these questions. Especially the 'why' question. Thinking for a couple of seconds can give them all these answers. But wtf, they've been trained to ask 'why'.

But then questions are not meant for evaluating the literal answers. Some questions are oblique ones. In the sense that 'Why Mississippi Earrings?' might be asked to evaluate my vocabulary or the quality of my voice or my body language.

Anyhow, since I haven't converted any of the interviews so far, I have 5 major alternative inferences about the interviewers' judgments of me. Mind you, none of these could be related to the 'why' they ask and to the answer I give to that 'why'. There could be more inferences of course but 5 is a good number.

I don't have the requisite skills. For me it's hard to believe that I don't have the skills. But then there's a possibility that I am fucked up in communicating that 'I have the skills'. In which case, I have licked jack-ass all my life and in all my career so far.

Third could be that I don't have experience in the domain. Fuck the domain, I don't want a domain-dependent job. In which case I am better off not having been selected.

Fourth could be that I am seen one bloody greedy opportunist, who wants to have a venture of his own and earn from a well-paying job/project as well. So I need a kick in the ass for my vice.

Fifth could be that if my venture's doing decent then I would pay more attention to the venture than to the job. So that's how people behave, right? My girl-friend's got a fracture and my mother's admitted in the hospital. So I will take care of only one. Or rather, I will not be able to take care of any of them since my attention gets divided. I am a management grad but 'management' in such a case won't work, they think. So, gone.

'Why' is a scientific question. And ridiculous too. In the context of a career path, all answers to 'why' can be concocted. 'Why' led economists to turn to behavioral economics. And the 'whys' they uncover sometimes are so bizarre that the 'why behind those whys' cannot quite be answered.

You can't ask Mukesh Ambani as to why he has a textile company and why a refinery and then why a retail company. But you will raise questions if I try to execute a strategy which I presented to a client and which was not accepted for whatever reason and which I believed could unlock value and give me some creative satisfaction. You will raise questions if I try to pull off more than one thing. The possibility is, I might just do.

The catch-22 of taking initiative

Entrepreneurs and owners of organizations often complaint that people around them, especially employees, lack initiative and don't do much for the organization and leave the organization without any compunctions.

If these people could really take initiative, would they be employees? Besides, what does a typical small/medium sized entrepreneurial set-up give its employees? A person who has sought employment in such a set-up is anyway very much insecure in many respects. And if entrepreneurship is a result of initiative, it would again fall on the entrepreneur to take initiative and lead and somehow instil a sense of security among the employees.

There's a belief among entrepreneurs that since they've taken risk, they deserve the huge rewards that might follow. Since they came up with the idea, the rewards are theirs. That nobody has a right to those rewards but he. And therefore, he builds and accumulates his wealth. If so, then how does the entrepreneur instil a sense of security among employees? By protecting his own wealth? Or by helping the employees partake of his wealth in some form (without losing the wealth really)?

If the answer to the last question is affirmative, then the entrepreneur has to take the lead in sacrificing his 'I deserve all the rewards' sentiment and share, until such time that employees' sense of personal well-being is taken care of and they feel gratitude towards the employer. Then is the time for the entrepreneur to accumulate and amass.

It's easier said. It's a tight rope. So much depends on a shared dream and general camaraderie.

How much should customer service guys be paid?

Why not the same as paid to sales or marketing guys? I am talking about the guys on the shop-floor. The guys who carry 'Help' tags on their chest.

Marketing guys makes promises. The manner of making the promise or the promise itself captures the prospects' attention. But who fulfills those promises?

Let's say Mississippi Earrings advertises. So it makes a promise, implicit or explicit. When that advertisement pulls in prospects at the retail shop, who fulfills or tries to fulfill the promise? The person on the shop-floor. If this person behaves obnoxiously, all's gone.

It applies to hospitals too. After gathering attention, who fulfills a big part of the promise? Doctors? Ward-boys, nurses, helpers?

In an educational institute, who fulfills the promise? The ad that captures attention? Or the teachers in the class?

At Pantaloons? Ad or the shop-floor exec?

On most occasions, I see a massive difference between a typical marketing person and a shop-floor exec. Someone might say, "But there's a difference in quality/skills." True! In fact, people hired as shop-floor execs aren't necessarily the greatest talkers or thinkers or problem-solvers. And these are the people who fulfill a big part of the promise. So why hire people with such poor skills? (Standard argument, shortage of quality manpower!)

Having chatted with prospects online and stayed on the shop-floor at Mississippi, I reckon,  delivery on the promises carries equal weightage, if not more.

Assuming that similar guys are put in charge of marketing and customer service, who would get more? Why is there such a discrepancy between remunerations?

Guess, in the entire sequence of conducting business, capturing attention of prospects is the first activity. Then follows all other things. So, 'first' wins. But we've seen the tall claims and, so often, we've experienced the delivery against those claims.

Too eager to sell?

Since the assembly line were set up quite a few years back and the greatest efficiency is when the assembly line keeps churning out stuff 24 hours a day, marketing men are also expected to work with greatest efficiency. As a result of which whatever gets loaded onto them to sell, they try conjuring up ideas to sell all that.

So an idea which was terrific and which initially helped sell a certain amount of stuff now comes under increasing pressure to sell more. So another idea gets added to the earlier genius-like idea, so that the two ideas combined start selling more.

Efficiency. Churn out more and more and more. Load. And explode. Either bend their backs or expand their tummies. Obesity and back problems are some of the most common problems among corporates, are they?

Social media has its origins in the desire to express and converse and create. Conversations flow in innumerable directions. Not just selling. Some brand marketers want to ring in the same message in response to every conversation and perhaps expect that every conversation converts into a sale. Sure, selling is their task. But selling is just one of the many conversations that can happen. You can't fill social media with just that kind of conversation. If you do, you become boring.

How to follow all "How to..." Strategies

Am observing a little phenomenon within myself.

Forget reading, when in a bookshop and browsing am ignoring (in fact, not picking) most books titled "How to...". Mind you, I've read quite a few of them in the past.

Since am reading a lot of blogs, I don't read stuff titled "10 strategies to...." or "101 ways how to...".

I've also started ignoring advices that begin with "This is how you...". Not all the time, but very often. Enough of listening to teachers, gurus, experts, heads, bosses, parents about "How to...". Almost makes me immobile. My memory's got limits.

The point isn't that we shouldn't know "How to...". The point is how people always keep using words to tell you "How to...". I also sometimes do the same; I tell people "How to...". Like this post. I hate it when I start doing it too often. There are limits to memory. And most often, memory builds through behavior. Through the actual doing of it. You can't first try to memorize all the things and then do them in the "How to..." steps.

More often than not it goes like this. Do. Face trouble. Find out "why". Find out "how". Do. Check. Find more.

My point is, don't just tell "How to...". Also show "How to...". And engage me when you demonstrate "How to...".

When people are interested in only telling me "How to...", sometimes I just go ahead and do it.

Corporate Paradox

I've heard it from CEOs and Gurus across the spectrum: talent is the biggest resource.

On numerous occasions, every time I've seen such news stories, I've pondered over this issue of retrenchment. And every time, the frame given is 'cost-cutting'.

So employees are costs. When such costs are cut, the company makes profit. Right? For whom? Shareholders? Most shareholders do nothing to increase a company's profits. Yes, of course they invest in shares. Definitely they aren't the ones to try and innovate. Innovation can only from talent/employees.

Unfortunately, I suppose, since employees are only viewed as costs for narrow and specific purposes, after spending a certain time in the cubicled corporations they evolve into nothing better than costs.

Boss' routine

is important coz your happiness might depend on that.

If the boss has no routine, all the best. If you both don't have a routine, all the very best.

Out-of-the-Box Thinking

That's the 'requirement' that recruiters often quote in their postings and ads.

So, after the out-of-the-box thinking happens, what next? Doing? If 'doing' follows the out-of-the-box thinking, then to quite an extent it would mean out-of-the-box doing.

The thing about out-of-the-box doing is that, it requires movement. It requires time. It requires space. Perhaps it requires breaking or bypassing or rearranging the existing processes. All of these, cost.

Partially, that's the reason for frustration among people who really think they are doing out-of-the-box thinking. They don't quite get to 'do' it. Sure, the requirement never promised out-of-the-box doing. Did it?

It's the way you make me feel

It's the way you respond.

When it comes to job applications, an applicant's feeling is based on the way the employer (or the representative of the employer) responds. Included in the 'way of responding' is the time taken to respond.

And surely, an employer's feeling is also dependent on the way an applicant responds. Here am just talking from an applicant's perspective.

Process:

1. Employer broadcasts an opportunity to the world.
2. Prospects come to know about the opportunity.
3. Prospects apply.
4. Employer calls for an interview/meeting.
5. Employer takes a decision (or applicant takes a decision).

The negotiation or deliberation always takes place before the 5th step. During this stage, representatives of employers typically do this (the list isn't exhaustive but gives an idea):

• Find the applicant suitable but try to judge 'how badly does he wants it'.
• Find the applicant suitable but try to bring 'the price' down.
• Find the applicant suitable but still try to figure out if they should be adding to the head-count.
• Find the applicant suitable and try to make him join sooner than later.

The last option is the best, of course, for the applicant. The other three aren't bad either until the way to negotiate is 'don't respond'. 'Don't respond' means stay put. Don't communicate at all in response to the applicant's communication. And the impact of 'don't respond' gets either mitigated or aggravated depending on the monetary/occupational situation of the applicant.

Here's what I sense. There's magic to swift response. No matter what the response. Yes, No, May be, Later... It spurs the next action on both sides. It's also a signal about the organization, one that's hard to ignore.

Bite your own tail

Often heard that organization is greater. Employees are replaceable.

Sometimes, heard my superiors say, "Set up processes. If you leave, the organization should not suffer. Organization should not be person-dependent."

Incredible! Effectively what the above means is that a person should create processes so that the organization can run without the very person who is creating processes. Why would an employee do so? To an extent, it is almost demeaning and dehumanizing.

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be processes. But the refrain should be used to drive the organization to higher levels of performance and effectiveness. To make things easily discernible and understandable.

Besides, even if every person is replaced with processes, there have to be at least those people who trigger the processes to unfold everyday.

Anding & Butting

Earth is a big planet. And it has water. And it has vegetation. And it has fish. And it has humans. And it has volcanoes. And it has storms. And... And...

But it isn't the universe.

I read. And I write. And I workout. And I watch movies. And I listen to music. And I play drums. And I FB. And I want...

But there are only 24 hours. But I have only so much money.

There's no end to Anding. But there's always a significant But. For good, may be for bad. And it is that significant But that will force choices. And those choices and living with those choices will make or break us. Make or break brands. Make or break great stories.

Where's your Butt?