purpose

Live Empty

By in Life, Life Ordinary, mPhil, Think About It No Comments Tags: , , , , ,

old tree and new tree stories

(via)

Such is the pace of life now that I can easily identify with the opening paragraph here. As I read on, I completely loved the part about the graveyard being the most valuable land in the world, “because with all of those people are buried unfulfilled dreams, unwritten novels, masterpieces not created, businesses not started, relationships not reconciled.” The rest of the article is about dying empty – to complete every task, thought, action, to leave nothing unspoken, uncreated, unwritten. 

Later, I read on Brain Picking, “Henry Miller on Creative Death“, in which Henry Miller, defining art, says, “Strange as it may seem today to say, the aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. In this state of god-like awareness one sings; in this realm the world exists as poem. No why or wherefore, no direction, no goal, no striving, no evolving…. This is the sublime, the a-moral state of the artist, he who lives only in the moment, the visionary moment of utter, far-seeing lucidity…. in the sense that any moment, every moment, may be the all; for the artist there is nothing but the present, the eternal here and now, the expanding infinite moment which is flame and song.” And later in the article “On the contrary, his zest for life is so powerful, so voracious that it forces him to kill himself over and over. He dies many times in order to live innumerable lives.“

I read a pattern in these. Of dying every day and being reborn the next day. A new life. I faintly understand and relate to this, but within me is another side that plans, that likes stability, and saves for a rainy day. I am unsure of how these two can co-exist. And I can’t help but be drawn to the lines at the beginning of the Miller post ““One aspect of our nature cannot be exalted above another, except and the expense of one or the other.” 

If so, I already know the winner, and as the first post points out, that would create an angst, or a perpetual state of discontent. It would seem as though the opposite of ‘die empty’ can only be ‘live empty’. There can be no middle path, and that’s scary and sad.

until next time, empty vessels and a lot of noise

Lovestrong

By in Life Ordinary, mPhil, Think About It No Comments Tags: , , , , ,

Slightly dated in the context of real time, but I thought this was a pertinent read in the Armstrong era. It’s titled “Honesty of the long-distance runner” and is about a Spanish runner Iván Fernández Anaya. He was running second in a race he had no chance of winning when he saw race leader Abel Mutai pull up about 10 meters before the finish, thinking he had already crossed the line. Instead of exploiting the situation, he let the Kenyan win using gestures to communicate. He thought it was the fair thing to do. He also candidly said that if a Eur/World medal was at stake, he’d probably have done things differently.

I saw this poster at gaping void, related to  purpose, but twisted it a bit in this context. It isn’t as though there aren’t things we love to do. As we move further in life, we learn more about the way life works. Sometimes these things we love make business sense, sometimes they don’t or requires either stellar talent or more hard work than we are willing to put in. Some of us work at it, some of us lock the love away and some of us decide to find an easy way out. And thus it is that even things which involve love and passion – sports and arts – have been converted into competitions and ruthless economically viable phenomena. So really, where does the corruption begin?

until next time, strong-armed

Of fame and purpose

By in mPhil, Think About It, Yesterday No Comments Tags: , , , , , ,

I completely missed Bigg Boss 6. Except for knowing that the arrested-for-sedition cartoonist and Sapna Bhavnani were participants, my exposure to it was limited to lunch conversations at office, where two of my friends seemed to be avid followers. :) I thought my ignorance was only fair, since they are usually clueless when I mention the names of micro-celebrities on Twitter.

Increasingly, I am realising that popular culture is going through massive fragmentation. The above was an example. I think this generation is connected with more people than any before it. It has always been so, with better means of communication, but this time, it has been an explosion. We’re still coping with the overload, or filter-failure, as Clay Shirky calls it. Despite social networks, or probably because of them and their algorithms, we miss out on many things.

I was thinking of all this in the context of fame. Fame, to me, has some connection with my favourite subject these days – purpose. Fame can serve as a means, or end, or a by product of purpose. The thing is, with the fragmentation I mentioned earlier, fame probably has to be redefined, also because its shelf life has been drastically reduced. Once upon a time, a name/photo appearing in a newspaper was an achievement. (let’s ignore the notoriety piece :) ) Later, before channels mushroomed, it was television. But now….

One of the things that might happen because of all this is the gradual de-linking of fame and purpose, if it does exist. I’m still trying to figure out how that will shift our perspectives on purpose.

until next time, being famous ain’t what it used to be…

Stated Obsession

By in Life Ordinary, mPhil No Comments Tags: , ,

A defining purpose, or rather, the lack of it, is something that has been gnawing at me for a while now. One can go about the daily motions of life without defining a purpose, and it need not affect professional objectives or progress. In fact life must, and will go on without a purpose, but once the gnawing begins, it is difficult to rid of. It might be the result of something that I am often accused of – extra doses of analysis – self and otherwise. :)

A friend-in-law (coined to refer to the spouse of a friend :D ) recently got probably one of the biggest highs possible in his domain – a result, I am sure, of the hard work he put in, and his unwavering belief in the self. The hard earned outcome of a well stated purpose and well directed passion. May he have many more.

One of my favourite Malayalam movies in recent times (actually in the all-time list as well) is Ustad Hotel, about a young man and his choices – two paths and their implications symbolised by his father and grandfather respectively. The game changer in the movie is inspired by Narayanan Krishnan. (do read if you are not familiar with the name) In real life, Narayanan Krishnan has defined his purpose, and bravely soldiers on, helping those who have no one else to help them.

Completely different scenarios, with completely different motivations, but linked by the presence of a purpose. I can cite excuses – primarily the business of living and an interest in way too many things to devote myself completely to one – but I know those are just excuses. I am still searching for the reason – the inability to find something that defines me or the inability to devote myself to pursuing it, or just sheer lack of guts. My only hope is that I have some time left, but the clock is ticking.

until next time, a gnawing tick

The Things that FB Connect Us

By in Brand, Social Media, Strategy No Comments Tags: , , , , ,

Facebook’s ad film, released last week, reminds me of its redesigns – I hear it getting dissed across the web, starting with the place I saw it first. (check the comments) In case you really haven’t seen it yet, here it is

The film is titled “The Things That Connect Us”, it uses real world objects – chairs, bridges, doorbells, dance floors, nations and so on – as analogies of how Facebook connects us, and suggests in the end that perhaps we make these things to remind us that we are not alone.

I have read perspectives on how some of the ‘metaphors’ are not universal enough, and that this ‘connect’ idea has been used by several brands already. At 1 billion monthly active users, I wonder if Facebook really needs a positioning statement and if this film was supposed to be that. It is different things to different people but at its base, it connects us. The film is not meant to acquire users, or retain them. There are other things that Facebook does that will achieve these ends more efficiently and effectively. It’s when marketers see it through the prism of a campaign or advertising that it seems a #fail.

So why did I like the ad? A couple of lines from the AdAge article (linked to earlier) are pointers – “Great brands don’t talk about themselves, they talk about what they really love.“, attributed to David Kennedy, and “The best marketing that we have is people coming to Facebook every day connecting with their friends, families, local business, but every once in a while we’re going to want to define for ourselves who we are and share our values…” from Facebook’s own consumer marketing head.

The first statement is about a purpose that the organisation has found for itself – the things it loves to do as an organisation. (A few quotes here would give a sense of what Zuck’s aspirations are) Call me naive, but it’s a compelling purpose that has the potential to go beyond business and profits and one that many people would love to work on because they can identify with it. That defines brand Facebook, and purpose is what the best of brands strive for. The second sheds light on the audience it is intended for – themselves primarily, and then users who can share their values.

So then, why not show it in their internal network, you might ask. Probably because they’re Facebook, sharing is in their DNA, like it or not. :)

until next time, share a like (or a dislike)

PS: In case you didn’t like it, you might like this parody :)

Living over legacy

By in Life Ordinary, mPhil, Think About It 1 Comment Tags: , , , , ,

Sometimes, when the topic of purpose comes up on this blog (and it has many many times),  I try to connect it with legacy. When I saw Michael Schumacher come back for another round, and in general, when I see people whom I have admired for their craft, continue plying it even though they have fallen below the insanely high benchmarks they themselves have set, I wonder what makes them go on.

In the post that I’ve linked to earlier, I even wondered whether it’s the lack of a purpose in one’s life that drives one to look for a legacy – things that will last long after they’re gone. I also found it difficult to “consider that life, in whatever way it is lived, is its own purpose.”

But recently, I read a statement (via this excellent post, if you follow cricket, even passively) from Dravid, (quoting Ian Thorpe) “I can sacrifice my legacy for the love of the sport.” He continues, “Sometimes we get too caught up in legacy; what are we going to leave? Sometimes it’s not about that, it’s about the player actually playing at that point in time. He’s not concerned about his legacy, he’s concerned about what actually made him play the game in the first place, which is that love of the game, the desire to compete and play.”

At that point in time. Living in the moment. Where have I heard that before? In probably every book that talks of a higher state of consciousness. :)

Focusing on leaving a legacy is probably looking at purpose from the wrong end. If I can find that something that gives me joy just by doing it – the act of doing it being a reward in itself – the result and even the implications would probably not matter. The legacy would be something that also managed to happen.

until next time, legacy issues

Purposeful

By in Social Media, Strategy No Comments Tags: , , , ,

Last week, my co-conspirator on the ‘culture’ discussions on twitter- Harish – shared a Forbes article on why top talent leave organisations. This was a distilled version of another article that had 10 reasons! So, “Top talent leave an organization when they’re badly managed and the organization is confusing and uninspiring.” As the author notes, the 10 reasons in the earlier article could be roughly divided into managerial and systemic reasons. My 2 cents is that bad managers exist because the system allows them, and sometimes even rewards them. When good professionals see ‘wrong’ behaviour rewarded, they realise it’s time to leave.

The second of two pieces of advice that the author gives firms involves purpose and culture. Though it would seem that the former drives the latter, culture is capable of working towards or subverting an organisation’s purpose.

As is becoming a regular occurrence, I had an article waiting for me on Reader – Umair Haque’s “Overthrow Yourself“, in which he draws out the fine nuances between an organisation’s vision and its ambition. The former is an egoistical version towards which resources toil, and the latter is a portrait of the human consequences that your enterprise (not just your “company”, but your ideas, effort, time, ingenuity) creates. Semantics, you might say, but I think ambition also acknowledges the sense of purpose of the individuals involved.

To add to last week’s post, good professionals love to be empowered, and when they are, they love to be held accountable for the decisions they make, decisions that drive them towards achieving a purpose they can identify with. Probably every startup begins that way, but sometimes the vision takes over, just as in the case of social platforms.

until next time, purpose.ly

Culture.org

By in Strategy 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , ,

For quite a while, I have believed that culture is the most underestimated and underutilised tool among the organisation’s means of gaining strategic advantage. A few like the much venerated Zappos have used this lapse to maximum effect and by assembling a group of passionate and aligned individuals generated profits and publicity, all while retaining a culture that continues to thrive. Remember “Anyone can do what we do, but nobody can be who we are.”?

Last week, Maneesh wrote an excellent post titled ‘The Importance of Culture‘ that started off a discussion on twitter involving him, Harish and me. Having experienced a few instances when the influx of money into an organisation (not necessarily a startup) changed the internal landscape completely, I wondered whether scale (that many a time follows money) and culture are usually mutually exclusive. It’s not always so, but it takes not just a very skilled management team, but also an empowered employee bunch down the line to make it happen. It takes communication, rewarding the right behaviour and a lot of clarity to ensure that the culture is not lost. To quote from the post, “Culture is attitude, it is not behaviour. Everyone knows this, but we all get it messed up.“

When he linked professionalism and culture, I smiled because I remembered an incident from a couple of years back. That (very interesting) discussion, which prompted this post, was on whether passion or professionalism could better help the organisation scale. For various reasons, at that time, the two were mutually exclusive in the organisation. I argued for professionalism, because to me, it represented consistency and reliability. We both refused to accept the easy compromise of ‘both are necessary’. Towards the end, the management guru equated a professional to a mercenary. To me, the difference, was in alignment. In that sense, I agree with Maneesh that professionalism is practically non-negotiable. To quote from the post again, “You become a professional when you care. Your culture defines what you care about.“

A couple of days after this discussion, this tweet appeared on my TL

Posts across years, across industries, across lines of work, but if you read them, you’ll sense the similarity.

To me, culture is not a fancy set of perks and trappings that money can buy. It’s a sense of belonging, a feeling of being connected to a set of objectives and activities that give the individual a sense of purpose. A sense of enjoying the ride even when it’s a tough one, because you know there are many who will be your parachute in case you fall off a cliff that you didn’t anticipate. When that feeling is lost, the light in the cubicle is switched off. More often than not, permanently.

until next time, culture counter

Why knots

By in mPhil, Think About It 2 Comments Tags: , , ,

I was watching Priyadarshan speak at an award ceremony (on TV) about his new Malayalam movie starring Mohanlal and Mukesh. This ‘combination’ was hitting the silverscreen after a span of 10 years, and thanks to their history (early history I’d say) it was a special occasion. I had planned to catch the movie in the theatre but after reading (and listening to) the reviews, gave up the thought.

On another channel, Mukesh was claiming that though Priyadarshan kept saying he would not do a comedy again during the shooting, its ‘acceptance by the masses’ would make him rethink. (Oh noes) But there was one interesting thing he said – that when one discovered one’s purpose in life (Priyan and film making) he/she feels constantly compelled to keep at it.

D and I discussed whether Priyadarshan (and Mohanlal), who by now have their coterie, can be objective about their films. The box office collections, which is probably as objective as it gets, would be high anyway thanks to fan clubs across the state. There would be bouquets and brickbats anyway too. How can one be objective about those? In our own cases, how many of us can actually objectively take what’s usually called ‘constructive criticism’ for presentations/concepts/ideas? Or even praise for that matter? Now scale that to an effort that costs crores and months and imagine.

But if one thinks of it in a simple questions framework, (for now, I’m ignoring when and where) once the purpose or objective (why) has been determined, the what and how is determined by asking who is it for. And if the answer to ‘who’ happens to be the self, then everything else is probably superfluous -dependencies, costs, and even feedback. It stops being the creator’s problem, and becomes the consumer’s. However, when there is no clarity on the purpose, the superfluous becomes the driver. And that’s the trap most of us are probably in.

until next time, trappings :)

Reference Groups for Heroes

By in Life Ordinary, mPhil, Social Media, Think About It No Comments Tags: , , , , , ,

Scott Adams had a very interesting post ‘The Comparison Advantage‘, in which he writes about status related stress when “media is changing our reference group. We’re continuously bombarded with stories about people who are fabulously successful.” I’d add that social media is also a big culprit. According to him, the cure is  ”to make sure you’re near the top of at least one reference group in your life.”

With some difference, this is a thought that had crossed my mind long before I read this. But before we get to that, an interesting thing happened. A couple of posts (in Google Reader) after the above, I came across a post by Nilofer Merchant on HBR Blogs titled “Be Your Own Hero“. Completely contradictory? No. But related and yet different perspectives? Yes. This author asks us to junk the ‘Hero Narrative’ and pushes us to be our own hero by following our own passions and not trying to emulate anyone – a “clarity of purpose” for oneself. One of the proposed mantras is also “I shall not obsess over others’ success”, in addition to doing our bit to co-create the future.

And now we can come back to my thought. I can relate to Nilofer’s views because that was what led me to leave a cubicle and explore the path of being employed by myself. One and a half years gave me an immense amount of learning, one of which was that even with a well thought out ‘personal purpose’ in hand, it was difficult for me to stop comparing. It really didn’t help that the gestation time for it was quite high, and a ‘need it now’ attitude, probably heightened by social media, also played its part.

After much thought, I jumped back into a cubicle, before which I rewrote the ‘personal purpose’, in which I attempted to factor in the statustics. Putting a full stop to comparison is a long journey, and I’m already on it. An insight (humour me ;) ) I had while thinking about the ‘compare feature’ was that so far I had been dependent on one of my identities heavily. Mostly it was my work visiting card. So, when comparing, I wasn’t really acknowledging the other things that I was doing, and doing reasonably well. And that is where I mash Nilofer’s ‘personal purpose’ with Scott Adams’ ‘reference group’. I don’t need to top any of my reference groups, but I need them so that my ‘personal purpose’ is balanced between various activities and relationships. That way, I don’t have to kill myself for not blazing a new trail independently. The cubicle job allows me to work on the things I like to work on; the blogs, social platforms and columns allow me to explore other avenues of interest and gives me a sense of worth, and when I need a hug, there’s D and friends and family. I try to make conscious decisions on each of these, keeping the others in mind. Multiple identities, multiple reference groups, all part of the personal purpose. Early days, but the signs are good.

until next time, try id out :)

1 2

Array