Here is one photography tip I have not seen in many tutorials and web sites. This tip is more applicable with the advent of digital photography which allows us to take pictures using renewable resources and allows us to experiment more without losing much.
Once we download the pictures from our digital camera to our computer, we often neglect the step of filtering the good images from the not-so-good ones. Many times, we just upload our entire album to the internet and share our link with our friends.
I have just noticed that it makes a remarkable difference to the albums if I filter them by setting aside the mediocre pictures. Improperly lit pictures, repeats from experimentation, badly framed ones, mistakes, are all candidates for removal. Variety is also important to retain attention of the viewer.
I don't claim to be a professional photographer, but with just this simple step of removing the bad pictures from my albums, I have been able to give the good pictures a different level of appreciation they deserve.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Sharing judgment
When we describe some thing or some place, or some person, or some event, to a friend, we often end up not just transferring to them the description to the other person, but also our sense of judgment about that thing, event or person. I am realizing it profoundly when I describe to my wife my past events in my life, people I have interacted with, people who I have a good opinion about, those I don't, people in my life that have transformed me and so on. I see that I not only share with them the facts, but also what I feel about them - its emotional value. Sharing judgment is sometimes good. Sometimes it is not so good. When the event, person or event is a positive one, the effect is wonderful - we are spreading happiness. But when our own perspective of the event is negative, and if the listener accepts the negative perspective blindly, it may not be a good thing.
What I am arriving at is this: It is the responsibility of the narrator to describe the story in such a way that facts are separated from his own judgment. When appropriate, it is always good to clearly indicate to the listener that what he is describing is his own judgment and not necessarily the final verdict. And as a listener, it is important to not blindly accept others judgments, and take them at full value. The listener could use the facts along with his own experience, knowledge and maturity to provide perhaps a different perspective to the subject - which is always better.
What I am arriving at is this: It is the responsibility of the narrator to describe the story in such a way that facts are separated from his own judgment. When appropriate, it is always good to clearly indicate to the listener that what he is describing is his own judgment and not necessarily the final verdict. And as a listener, it is important to not blindly accept others judgments, and take them at full value. The listener could use the facts along with his own experience, knowledge and maturity to provide perhaps a different perspective to the subject - which is always better.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Today's enlightenment
Life presents us various situations to deal with. I realized that these are very important things I constantly need to remind myself of:
- Being true to myself. Being straightforward, open and sincere.
- Having a pure intent. Not wishing negatively for others - in all circumstances.
- Expressing my intent clearly and genuinely - because intentions speak better than action.
- Acting positively towards my good intentions - changing myself if necessary - because no one is perfect.
- Accepting my limitations, and the result - whatever it may be.
- Being true to myself. Being straightforward, open and sincere.
- Having a pure intent. Not wishing negatively for others - in all circumstances.
- Expressing my intent clearly and genuinely - because intentions speak better than action.
- Acting positively towards my good intentions - changing myself if necessary - because no one is perfect.
- Accepting my limitations, and the result - whatever it may be.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Recycling Project
My new apartment in NJ has a recycling bin. This is great because I always used to feel bad about dumping a lot of recyclable material in the general trash dumpster when I was in Phoenix. Now I make sure I separate my trash from recyclables. Of course I could have gone the extra mile of storing my recyclables and disposing it elsewhere. But I was one of the lazy guys. Nevertheless, I don't know the reason why recycle dumpsters are not provided in apartments there. I wonder if it is possible for a team to perhaps service an apartment (just one to begin with) regularly for recyclable material disposal. Would surely make a difference.
vishn.com
Now using my new domain for my blog.
http://www.vishn.com
The old URL http://vishr.blogspot.com should be redirected to http://www.vishn.com
http://www.vishn.com
The old URL http://vishr.blogspot.com should be redirected to http://www.vishn.com
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Communicating our philosophy of leadership
While working in teams, I think it helps if every individual at some point clarify his or her philosophy of leadership to other members of the team who are in a similar growth path.
Different people have different definitions of leadership. Some would claim that authority on the field, skills, experience and capabilities make a person a capable leader. Others may claim that leader should not be assigned because different people emerge as leaders at different situations because not everyone can be a leader at every time. Some may say that leaders should have power and authority to command over the team they lead - and others may believe that leaders are on the same playing field, and that reason prevails over hierarchy. People have strong opinions about such topics because of their background and upbringing.
When people with different philosophies of leadership meet and work together without knowing each others approach to growth, their way of working collides and there is more room for conflicts. One person's assertive approach may appear rude to the other, and another person's modesty may appear as incapability. On the other hand, it helps if each person communicates his approach to leadership, and helps his team understand his way of handling things and his expectations from everyone else. Ideal would be for some person in the team with the "facilitator" role to create a forum for the team to share these thoughts and come to an understanding as to what would work best for the team as such. When employers are interviewing candidates or when anyone interviewing with a potential employer, it also helps to discuss this topic and evaluate if the environment and the candidate are a good match.
Different people have different definitions of leadership. Some would claim that authority on the field, skills, experience and capabilities make a person a capable leader. Others may claim that leader should not be assigned because different people emerge as leaders at different situations because not everyone can be a leader at every time. Some may say that leaders should have power and authority to command over the team they lead - and others may believe that leaders are on the same playing field, and that reason prevails over hierarchy. People have strong opinions about such topics because of their background and upbringing.
When people with different philosophies of leadership meet and work together without knowing each others approach to growth, their way of working collides and there is more room for conflicts. One person's assertive approach may appear rude to the other, and another person's modesty may appear as incapability. On the other hand, it helps if each person communicates his approach to leadership, and helps his team understand his way of handling things and his expectations from everyone else. Ideal would be for some person in the team with the "facilitator" role to create a forum for the team to share these thoughts and come to an understanding as to what would work best for the team as such. When employers are interviewing candidates or when anyone interviewing with a potential employer, it also helps to discuss this topic and evaluate if the environment and the candidate are a good match.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Indispensability
It has been six years since I moved to Phoenix to do my Masters. In these years I have seen many friends come to Phoenix and stay, and add meaning to our lives, and many close friends leave for good. This month, my very close friend is about to leave, and it may very well happen that I will leave too in the next few months. This moving away feeling brings me to the thoughts in this post.
Many times, we feel we are indispensable. We feel that the value we create in our profession, in our community, in our social groups etc cannot be replaced.
The reality is nothing in this world is indispensable. The world will move on no matter what. The world does not and cannot revolve around us. People may be grateful for the service rendered, but they will not collapse in our absence. It is best to sincerely contribute when we have the opportunity, and let go, moving on to the next one when time comes, without trying to reap the fruits of the value we may have created.
The other story is also true. I may leave, but need not leave in sadness that I will not find what I have found here elsewhere. Happiness is what you create around yourself, it is not found only in a specific place or only around certain people. No city or town or social group is indispensable either.
Many times, we feel we are indispensable. We feel that the value we create in our profession, in our community, in our social groups etc cannot be replaced.
The reality is nothing in this world is indispensable. The world will move on no matter what. The world does not and cannot revolve around us. People may be grateful for the service rendered, but they will not collapse in our absence. It is best to sincerely contribute when we have the opportunity, and let go, moving on to the next one when time comes, without trying to reap the fruits of the value we may have created.
The other story is also true. I may leave, but need not leave in sadness that I will not find what I have found here elsewhere. Happiness is what you create around yourself, it is not found only in a specific place or only around certain people. No city or town or social group is indispensable either.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Motivation
I came across this 43Folders post on Paradox of Motivation. It talks about the Shankar Vedantam article on When Play Becomes Work. The thoughts in this article are very similar to what I have also been thinking all along. Nice that it is able to verbalize what I wanted to express more clearly.
Work is best when not driven by rewards and punishments. It is best driven by its own value - the difference it makes when the work is done, or the lost opportunity when not done.
The article ends with an observation that is very true.
Work is best when not driven by rewards and punishments. It is best driven by its own value - the difference it makes when the work is done, or the lost opportunity when not done.
The article ends with an observation that is very true.
So why are rewards and punishments employed so liberally?
"People like it because it is easy," Deci said. "It is easy to offer a reward, but it is not easy to help people find their own motivation."
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Collective Responsibility
Many large companies follow the hierarchical responsibility system, wherein the manager is responsible to lead a team consisting of several people who report to him. He is responsible for the success of the project the team is undertaking. He takes credit if the project succeeds, or the blame if it does not. However, his team members are working as hard as him to get the job done. His job is to oversee them, coordinate, plan, police, monitor and do whatever it takes to ensure that things are getting done in time. He is the channel for reporting status upwards in the food chain. His head is on the line if things fail, and he gets the credit if everthing goes on well.
For some reason which I am trying to discover by writing this down, this model does not seem correct to me. It seems like my value system contradicts with what is being followed in such reporting models.
That one person take credit or blame for the entire team doesn't sit well with me. It is okay for one person to coordinate all the activities and communicate to ensure that the grand vision is clear and reachable, but I think that person is in no way superior or inferior to people who perform the tasks. If things happened beyond the coordinator's control, it is not fair to blame him. Nor can he take away all the credit for the team's work just because he coordinated it. It would be against the principles of good teamwork.
The thought of 'teamwork' makes me want to clarify what I think it is about before I go on any further. In my opinion, a great team is where every member
The hierarchical responsibility structure seems to encourage control. Since only the manager's head is on the line for the entire project, he better be given the power to control everyone undertaking the tasks. Otherwise it won't work. This threat cascades into authoritative leadership styles which I have described in my earlier post. The single-point-of-responsibility system subtly says "I am in charge here". Instead of also making the rest of the team feel responsible for the overall goal equally as him, this approach makes puppets out of them.
Perhaps it is true that only this model works best for large companies where alignment of vision across a large populous can be done only based on some degree of hierarchical control, and enforcement because coordination in this structure is much simpler.
Hmm... or is there a better way? This I am not sure now.
In small and medium sized organizations, self directed work teams is great. It promotes teamwork and collective responsibility. Companies like Semco have adopted it and have proven that it works. They have eliminated several layers of management in the organization. Team members take turns in coordinating projects. This approach may relatively be more chaotic, may appear disorganized, may result in more conflicting opinions that need to be resolved, but I think all these are far easier and better problems to solve. Collective responsibility will result in better interactions between people. People will remind each other when tasks slip away. Unhealthy competition and rivalry is reduced. When reminded of common goals to achieve to which the entire team is committed, people will bring their conflicts to compromises sooner. The key here is collective responsibility for the grand vision, as well as collective rewards. I will think more about the latter and write about it soon.
For some reason which I am trying to discover by writing this down, this model does not seem correct to me. It seems like my value system contradicts with what is being followed in such reporting models.
That one person take credit or blame for the entire team doesn't sit well with me. It is okay for one person to coordinate all the activities and communicate to ensure that the grand vision is clear and reachable, but I think that person is in no way superior or inferior to people who perform the tasks. If things happened beyond the coordinator's control, it is not fair to blame him. Nor can he take away all the credit for the team's work just because he coordinated it. It would be against the principles of good teamwork.
The thought of 'teamwork' makes me want to clarify what I think it is about before I go on any further. In my opinion, a great team is where every member
- respects and is respected at all times, especially when opinions differ
- brings their best to the table and seeks to bring out the best in others
- is committed to, feels responsible for and seeks to achieve the common team goal
The hierarchical responsibility structure seems to encourage control. Since only the manager's head is on the line for the entire project, he better be given the power to control everyone undertaking the tasks. Otherwise it won't work. This threat cascades into authoritative leadership styles which I have described in my earlier post. The single-point-of-responsibility system subtly says "I am in charge here". Instead of also making the rest of the team feel responsible for the overall goal equally as him, this approach makes puppets out of them.
Perhaps it is true that only this model works best for large companies where alignment of vision across a large populous can be done only based on some degree of hierarchical control, and enforcement because coordination in this structure is much simpler.
Hmm... or is there a better way? This I am not sure now.
In small and medium sized organizations, self directed work teams is great. It promotes teamwork and collective responsibility. Companies like Semco have adopted it and have proven that it works. They have eliminated several layers of management in the organization. Team members take turns in coordinating projects. This approach may relatively be more chaotic, may appear disorganized, may result in more conflicting opinions that need to be resolved, but I think all these are far easier and better problems to solve. Collective responsibility will result in better interactions between people. People will remind each other when tasks slip away. Unhealthy competition and rivalry is reduced. When reminded of common goals to achieve to which the entire team is committed, people will bring their conflicts to compromises sooner. The key here is collective responsibility for the grand vision, as well as collective rewards. I will think more about the latter and write about it soon.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)