The Pygmalion vs. The Golem Effect

There are two kinds of self-fulfilling prophecies. They are broadly defined by wiki as follows:

The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon in which the greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform.

On the other hand is the Golem effect, in which low expectations lead to a decrease in performance.

In ancient Greek mythology, Pygmalion fell in love with one of his sculptures, which then came to life. The theme was in the main stray of many English literary works during the victorian era. One of which is George Bernard Shaw's play titled "Pygmalion" from which Rosenthal effect gets its name. In Shaw's play, the protagonist, a professor of phonetics Henry Higgins makes a bet that he can train a bedraggled Cockney flower girl, Eliza Doolittle, to pass for a duchess at an ambassador's garden party by teaching her to assume a veneer of gentility, the most important element of which, he believes, is impeccable speech. (The play is a sharp lampoon of the rigid British class system of the time and a commentary on women's independence.)

When read along with Hawthorne effect, the two behavioral effects above become even more interesting. The Hawthorne effect (commonly referred to as the observer effect) is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior, which is being experimentally measured, in response to the fact that they know that they are being studied, not in response to any particular experimental manipulation. (Of course, without much doubts the key-words and the theme thus far may have already reminded you of the Quantum double-slit experiment, which in itself is a topic for a new Bubble-game. Meanwhile, try here if you must.)

These effects, among others, constitute the broader macro psychology theory of human motivation and personality called "Self-Determination Theory" which concerns with people's inherent growth tendencies and their innate psychological needs, and attempts to study the motivation behind the choices that people make with/out any external influence and interference.

When applied to modern-day study of the economy, it brings us to the ongoing work by MIT professor Dan Ariely in the field of "behavioral economics". The following TED talk captures his ideas rather nicely around prevalent biases in human decision-making process and the term that he coined to describe the behavior: "Predictably Irrational". (My short book-review of the namesake shall follow as a future post.)

[Dan Ariely: Are we in control of our own decisions?]
NB: This blog entry is an example of "Bubble-game Theory"

Read More

The Dunbar Number and Limits of Our Social Networks

THE SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEB 2.0 (though both are considered synonymous by some) provided the netizens with amazing new possibilities, like a new universe opening up with everyone mingling with everyone else. While the web (no pun intended) of these collaboration network, social in nature, kept increasing in complexity and continued expanding, there was no measure for if it were to follow the same yo-yo model of the actual Universe (try here). In other words, it was very difficult to ascertain if the motion was inward or outward, for there were no clear boundaries defined or known.

The size of the neocortex of the brain allows humans to have stable networks of about 150. This is known as "the Dunbar number".

With the help of Dr. Robin Dunbar’s research, perhaps we now have the first indications toward the limitations of Web 2.0 vis-a-vis human psychology and behaviour. Dr. Dunbar is an anthropologist currently with the Oxford University and has studied primates and humans and their social behaviour.

Many of the activities and exchanges on the online social networks are considered "grooming". In the wild, grooming is time-consuming: keeping track of who to groom —and why— demands quite a bit of mental computation. One needs to remember who is allied with, hostile to, or lusts after whom, and act accordingly.

On the web, social 'networking' algorithms and computations power help with these calculations. Yet, the cognitive power of the human brain limits the size of the social network that an individual of any given species can develop. Dr. Dunbar suggested that the size of the neocortex of the human brain allows for having stable networks of about 148 connections (or 150 in round figures). This is known as "the Dunbar number", and recent sampling of Facebook users network gives an average of about 120, which seems consistent with this hypothesis. The research continues further as follows:

Many institutions, from Neolithic villages to the maniples of the Roman army, seem to be organised around the Dunbar number.

[In the modern era] An average man —one with 120 friends— generally responds to the postings of only seven of those friends by leaving comments on the posting individual's photos, status messages or "wall". An average woman is slightly more sociable, responding to ten. When it comes to two-way communication such as e-mails or chats, the average man interacts with only four people and the average woman with six. Among those Facebook users with 500 friends, these numbers are somewhat higher, but not hugely so. Men leave comments for 17 friends, women for 26. Men communicate with ten, women with 16.

Humans may be advertising themselves more efficiently. But they still have the same small circles of intimacy as ever.

This also goes on to say that if you are "in touch" with that person fairly regularly with whom you are perhaps yet to work out a one-on-one, you are better off treasuring those interactions, for you have gotten into the "core" within the Dunbar circle. At the same time, in his 2005 book —The Human Story— Dunbar quotes Bob Marley's Redemption Song (try here), suggesting not to fall pray to the omnipresent temptations of 'grooming'.

(More to read and write on the Attention Economy in the coming posts.)

• See also:
• Go here for the relevant research paper [PDF] by Dr. Dunbar titled "The Social Brain Hypothesis" at the University of Liverpool website
  
• Go here for The Economist article: "The size of social network".
• Go here for a video lecture by Dr. Dunbar titled "What Makes Us Human?" at pulse-project.org

Read More

HBR: "The Right Way To Be Fired"

NO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT HAS A PERMANENCY CLAUSE. The category "permanent employee" is only to differentiate one from temps - both remain time-bound nonetheless. There may be a clause in the employment contract talking about retirement age of an employee, and rather misleadingly, that might go on to give an impression to the newly joined that her job is secure and permanent until the age of say 60 years. However, in reality that section of the employment terms is just another clause suggesting when would you be required to leave your present job. As the "globalization" story propagates to more and more regions and industries, it is getting increasingly important, especially to the optimistic lot like myself too young for that retirement age yet, that the realities of the impermanent nature of jobs and employment be realised, the sooner the better, such that one can make a more informed and rewarding career planning.

They also call it acting "professional".

In essence, an organization employs personnel because and until it requires them. Unlike perhaps government jobs, no organization is obliged to continue an employment on a sort of permanent basis. It has never happened in the history of employment. The primary function of a Human Resources department is thus to create a comfort-zone called 'sense of permanency' where there may not be any for real. Job cuts, Pink slip, Resignation, Hire/Fire, and Layoffs are rather harsh words in the politically correct arena of corporates and employment, but they are as relevant and real as the pay cheque; and that is why the top career planners and advisory firms counsel with their clients to have what is called a "severance contract" embedded within the job offer-letter itself.

At the risk of having an anti-climax or feeling counter-intuitive for having to talk about separation formalities while discussing joining details, Maryanne Peabody and Dr. Laurence J. Stybel, after 22 years of research and working with more than 500 top executives, argue that "it's your best hedge against a bitter exit" and would come to one's rescue in so many ways when things get "uncomfortable". The case in point: prenuptial agreement that protects both sides, and the face-saving usefulness it has shown over the years.

Having come too close for comfort myself to such a scenario I was nodding almost all the way through this very interesting and relevant paper by Peobody and Stybel titled "The Right Way To Be Fired" and published by Harvard Business Review under Managing Your Career series (see links below). Following is an excerpt from the executive summery section (emphasis added):

Nearly all of us will lose our jobs sometime, but is there a right way to be terminated? What differentiates fired employees who make the best of their situation from those who do not? One answer is mind-set. Many 'workers' unconsciously hold a "tenure mind-set", believing in the promise of employment security. By contrast, other workers hold an "assignment mentality", seeking each job as one in a series if impermanent, career building stepping-stones. Most corporate board members and CEO's have this later mentality and consider their executives to be terminal assignments...

When the employees who hold the tenure mind-set are suddenly laid off, they can fall into three common traps: "lost identity" trap - executives who have over-identified with their jobs and feel indispensable fall into this trap and react to termination with anger and bitterness; "lost family" trap - employees who posses tight-knit, emotional bonds with co-workers feel betrayed and rejected when fired; "lost ego" trap - some introverted executives fall into this trap and they quietly retreat without negotiating termination packages.

To prepare for the eventuality of termination it is suggested that executives adopt assignment mind-set all the times. They should keep their social network alive, include a termination clause in employment contracts, and consider hiring an agent [...] By assuming control over the way they are fired, people can gain control over their careers...

As in almost all walks of life the key has been identified as Mind Gap. The paper is very well illustrated with real-life examples and handles the delicate issues with required gentleness as well as practical wisdom. Whilst the situation of job loss is almost a daily news in the high-cost and profit-centric regions, the so called low-cost locations are also catching up, for every organization would want to replicate itself albeit at a smaller scale when it creates presence in the low-cost region, and in doing so also clones its HR policies.

Going through the Pink-slip tales and their economic ramifications one can not help but have the sense of living dangerously in the contemporary corporate environment. Along with the suggested mitigation strategies in the paper, I noticed "impermenance" being mentioned at least once on each and every page. And I could not help but carry the reference further to the premise called Three Marks of Existence in Buddhism where anicca (impermenance) is one of them.

Finally, as they say:

Jobs belong to the organizations, but careers belong to the individuals.

Update: HBR ran a cover story - The layoff - in their March' 09 issue. Go here for the online copy.

• See also:
• Related article: Five lessons from Sub-prime crisis
• Go here for purchasing this HBR article "The Right Way To Be Fired" from Harvard online store
• Go here for the official website of Stybel Peabody & Associates
• Go here for a relevant story by Y! news: "Executives afraid to take holidays in case 'they lose jobs'"

Read More

So Long, King Gates

FINALLY, THE IT TZAR TAKES THE BACK SEAT. And as Mr. Bill Gates completes his last full working day by the EOD today - June 27, 2008 - at his Richmond, WA office in the US, an era of Biggest, Richest, and Fastest draws towards a change. Call him Innovator, Software Evangelist, Chief Software Architect, or by any other name, above all, Mr. Gates is a successful businessman, Zero-to-billions kind. And that is how I would want to reckon him, for Mr. Gates is not perhaps a mesmerising orator, neither a charismatic leader, nor a magnanimous personality. Even if he is all of these, they rather remain secondary, for the bottomline is, Mr. Gates knows business, does business and means business. Period.

Arguably the world's most famous dropout - and thus perhaps the tallest example that education and money may not have a direct corelation - wrote the first BASIC compiler 17 years ago, and left the legacy as the world's richest man with such words: "There is nobody getting rich writing software that I know of...".

[Left: Bill Gates, CEO, about 27, in his Microsoft office in 1982. Source: time.com. Do you also feel that the DOS screen in front of him reads something very similar to "Bad Command or File name?"]

Mr. Gates indeed has been the biggest catalyst for last two decades for the IT industry and for the global economy at large - Windows OS still runs more than 90% of personal computers in the world, and Microsoft Office artefacts are the de-facto standard for offline information and data transaction. This has made Mr. Gates the richest man on earth; reaching there in the fastest possible manner - at the speed of thought, if you like...

On my part, it was a wonderful experience to listen to him from a mere few feet away in Sep 2002 while he was delivering a lecture and providing with his vision (such as, "XML is the future...") at the time of the launch of Windows XP. It being my first encounter with a global leader at close proximity left me with a lasting impression.

Competition has not been kind to Mr. Gates, and visa-versa is probably equally true. Sort of a reminder of the old saying that Friends come and go, enemies accumulate...

The success of Microsoft Corporation undoubtedly has contributions from many more than Mr. Gates and his "Big Picture" memos alone, but in the world-wide (Globalization?) game of business where media and economy are increasingly tying up, and where winner takes it all, the credit nonetheless has almost always been attributed to Mr. Gates as the poster-boy face of Microsoft. At the same token, the discredit of bad designs, security flaws and sloppy software performance is also to the discredit of Mr. Gates.

[Right: Culturing Innovation; Sponsoring ImagineCup. Bill Gates in Korea for the event in 2007.]

It would be an interesting experience for Bill Gates to become a user from the owner of Microsoft products. His displeasure towards many thing Microsoft, especially the usability and user-friendliness, has been known. (Here is the full text of a rather interesting and lambasting email supposedly from Gates himself.)

BillG, as they call him, has never faced any job interviews, and in that respect he would perhaps always remain inexperienced! Unless of course any of the prospective next career moves (as in the following video) click for him :-)

Mr. Gates opened his keynote of TechEd 2008 last month with the following video. This is where Mr. Gates tries various career changes now that he is to move out of Microsoft. It has been making rounds on YouTube since Jan this year, and it's honest, well choreographed, very humorous and well entertaining. Not worth missing at all!

[Above: Bill Gates, Last Day at Microsoft. Simply Brilliant! Go here for the YouTube link.]

Bill Gates is going to be just fine whatever new avtar he may adorn next. But the industry observers seem to be divided over what would happen to Microsoft in absence of its poster-boy. I recall a media interview a few years ago where the reporter indirectly inquired about the "Google threat".

Mr. Gates replied and I quote, "Every couple of years a new company comes up and people say that it would put us [Microsoft] out of business. And every time I say, 'No, not this time'..."

If monopoly and monarchy have anything in common, we should shortly hear, "The King is dead... Long live the King!"

Let's see who would stand up and say "No, not this time..." for Microsoft next.

[Go here at time.com for the Photo-essays on Bill Gates' early days.]

Read More

My Net-worth is in Millions Already!

WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE AMONG MILLIONAIRES? If you are in IT in India, perhaps you already are!

First, some bullet-points about the global and Indian IT industry that got me thinking:

• Indian Software Industry is approx 66% of Worldwide Software Services
• Top 6 Indian IT Companies makes of approx. 50% of total Indian IT Industry
  
• In terms of sales among these top six (in descending order of reported figures for 2007 - TCS, Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Satyam, and HCL), the first three clocks almost 60%

Now, a Forrester Research forecast reports says that the total Global IT spend (IT industry potential) is projected to be at USD 1.55 trillion in 2007-08.

Wow! A quick back of an envelop analysis reveals some pretty interesting monetarily figures. (above: rather front of the envelop; the back was already taken by the groceries' list...) Enjoy:

Global IT industry at USD 1.55 tn (2007)
↓
66% of it is served by companies in India
↓
50% of which is with the top 6 players of India
i.e. 33% of global IT services business is with 6 Indian cos.
↓
About 7% of Global IT business is with Infosys
and
they have about 70k employee-base
↓
therefore, an Individual net-worth could be 7/70,000 = 0.00001%
↓
applying a multiplying factor* p @ p = 3.5
0.00001% x 3.5 = 0.000035%
↓
net-worth of 0.000035% of Global IT business
↓
my net-worth could be 0.000035% of USD 1.55 trillion
=> USD 1.55 tn x 0.00000035 = USD 5425000
=> approx USD 5.5 million

* To account for the disparity of "value-add" across various levels and roles in a given organization and in the industry at large, let me introduce a 'premium' factor p, which takes into account factors such as experience, longevity and loyalty, value-add-over-tradition, client-relationship-quotient, niche skills/domain knowledge, roles/management abilities, innovations/leadership demonstrations, reputation/recommendations/published papers/blogs etc., I-am-the-best-attitude, and alike.

As the base, a 'pure' and productive software engineer in Infosys would have her contributions to the industry measured at p = 1.

For my p factor, I have considered value 1 for 10 years of industry experience, 1 for effectively delivering in client-relationship and value creation (business development) roles, added 1 to it for venturing into and bringing back 'goodies' from unchartered territories (business development, and successful greenfield projects), and 0.5 for doing more than 3 years at Infosys (longevity and loyalty), which makes my p = 3.5.

And, in terms of the Global IT industry, that brings my current 'Professional' net-worth at USD 5.5 million!

Now, that 'Feels' good!

How much is your worth? Aren't you a millionaire yet!

[For relevant Forrester Research forecast for 2007-08, go here.]
[For the corresponding NASCOMM story of 2007, go here.]
[For Forbes.com report on Ambani's 'costliest home in the world', go here.]

Edit:
Go here for npr podcast putting "Value On Life" at USD 6.9 million in 2008, which is a depreciation of nearly 11% over past five years.

Read More

The Future of Business - $0.00 enterprises

A really interesting article by the Editor in Chief at Wired magazine, Chris Anderson titled "Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business" was the subject of much debate recently.

Accordingly to Chris, the economy of the brave new world is mainly driven by "scarcity" and "wastage" (as against to the old world concept of demand vs. supply). Out side of online business it may take a rather detailed and elaborate study to apply this new economy driver phenomenon to the world at large, such as manufacturing or airline industry.

Chris talks about six business models with examples that are used in the web2.0 economy, and goes on the indicate that all of them revolves around the concept of "Free!".

At the same time, he argues that less successful (or failed) ventures have not appreciated the psychological bearer called "penny gap" which separates the cheap from the free.

Talking about "Freeconomics", he says that what makes 'free' economically possible is known as externalities, a concept that holds that money is not the only scarcity in the world. Chief among the others are your time and respect, two factors that we've always known about but have only recently been able to measure properly. The "attention economy" and "reputation economy" are too fuzzy to merit an academic department, but there's something real at the heart of both.

Some other interesting 'observations' include:

• Forty years ago, the principal nutritional problem in America was hunger; now it's obesity, for which we have the Green Revolution to thank.
• Going from tens of dollars in the 1960s the cost of a transistor is approximately 0.000001 cent today for each of the transistors in Intel's latest quad-core. This meant that we should start to "waste" transistors.
• If the unitary cost of technology is halving every 18 months, when does it come close enough to zero to say that you've arrived and can safely round down to nothing? The answer: almost always sooner than you think.
• In the Greek philosopher Zeno's dichotomy paradox, you run toward a wall. As you run, you halve the distance to the wall, then halve it again, and so on. But if you continue to subdivide space forever, how can you ever actually reach the wall?
• Not too cheap to meter, as Atomic Energy Commission chief Lewis Strauss said in a different context, but too cheap to matter.

It would be interesting to look forward to his forthcoming book - "Free!".

Here is the link to the whole article.

Read More

Mind, the Gap - addendum II - Ecomonics

While reading "Mind, the Gap" again, I felt the need of explaining the usage of term 'economics'. The classical definition of the terms goes somewhat like the following:

economics (ĕk'ə-nŏm'ĭks, ē'kə-)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems.

In other words, it is classical trade but in a much advanced and re-defined form. All throughout 1900's, economics remained the force of forces, surfacing in clear sight in forms of capitalism, especially towards the last couple of decades of the century (whilst communism was being defeated by its own self).

In the current century, however, the term has to expand event more that "production, distribution and consumption" to encompass the new dimensions of technological proliferations of the society - namely, Web 2., et al.

In the sense that I would like to use the term economics whilst talking about 'the Gap' should also include not just monetary-economy (though it remains the flagship), but also the "attention economy" (how Google makes money by having you to give attention to all those sponsored contents and ads), and "reputation economy" (how Google 'pressurises' you to improve you hit-count of your online presence - your website, blog, social-networking profile - that should feature among top 20 Google hits when someone fires a relevant query. That, and also Google PageRank.)

Technology is raw. Net is the medium by which technology would interact and interchange information with society. Whilst technology has to prove itself (by turning profitable) economically, it could only do so if (and perhaps the only if) it would get the tune of the psychology of the society.

When the inventors start to really master the tune of psychology of the society their technology is serving, you find that the society is 'hooked' to the given technology. People are so wound up into it that almost no questions are asked. The hook is attached to a line, and the sinker is usually heavy (with right marketing). The spin of the spindle wounding up the line is actually the economy making profit.

Read More

Mind, the Gap - addendum I - Psychology

In an interesting parallel with the 'Mind Gap' concept, here is a quote from the strategy by a marketing guru to the modern successful IT enterprises, advising the CEO's of the interplay between psychology and economy in making of an effective marketing strategy and selling their systems:

"... the strategy is to focus market development efforts on the end-user community [who you want to use your system], not on the technical community. Specifically you want to enlist the support of the economic buyer, the line executive or manager in the end-user organization who has the profit-and-loss responsibility for the given function your product serves... [Psychologically] you should not expect to secure primary sponsorship from the IT professionals... [A new product and a paradigm shift] is not in the interest of the IT department. It means extra work for them, and it exposes their mission-critical systems to additional risks... [Psychologically] it would not have been in the interest of the end users who report to the economic buyer. From their point of view, the old paradigm is more familiar and secure. In the short term, with the learning curve required to come up to speed on the new one, they are actually going to be less effective. So they may resist you as well. It is only the economic buyer, who has to pay the ongoing cost of the status quo but can no longer afford to do so, who can be counted on to be unequivocally supportive of the change..."

As it happens elsewhere, so is in this example, that the strategy has the psychology and economy components in a direct interplay. Towards the end of the quote it also gives the hint that it is not simply restricted to marketing strategy, but is equally found in change management as well.

Read More

Mind, the Gap

An ancient Sanskrit saying has it:

तुंडे तुंडे मतीः भिन्ना।

(tunde tunde mateehi bhinna)

Which literally means that every head has a differing mind. Less subtly, everyone has a different opinion.

It may remain unsubstantiated at this hour, but I would argue that this difference and diversity is stemming from the ‘Genetic diversity’ as found prevalent as a principle under Biodiversity as a hole. Biodiversity, in a sense, is a science of studying all the various species and their interdependence that gives the significance to the ecology and bio-ecosystem of the Earth. Taken a few logical steps further on the same line, this would translate into the social phenomenon classified as Cultural diversity, and so forth.

It is the Mind, the psychology, that divides and at the same time units all individual aspects under the single ecology of the cultural fabric.

In other words, things are as they are in the world, good or bad, because of this Diversity principle - what may be considered good for one may not be good for someone else... If one applies this theory to the state of one's living, saying that the solution to your given prevailing unfavourable personal condition lies is a certain product or service, one becomes a party to the economy. For this very principle is also an integral part of world economy. (Look around and you would find examples are aplenty.),

It is that Gap, disparity, demand vs. supply, the fundamental logic behind any economy, that gives goals and 'purposes' to individual lives in the contemporary world.

And, as we just argued, that gap, the economy, stems from Mind, the psychology.

Having said that, one may approach psychology through economy and argue that - economy also contributes into framing of an individual psychology. Which is absolutely true as well - for economy is largely responsible for the socio-political environment one lives in. This environment influences one's thought process all the way from childhood - which the psychoanalysts know as conditioning of the 'mind'.

Now, here we have Mind (the psychology) stemming from the gap (the economy).

So, I suppose it is safe to say that both of these are like best buddies, going hand-in-hand, none leading the other, nor one following the another. They are like the two aspects of the duality that is so omnipresent in the world at large.

These two, always co-joined, create what I would want to call a Mind Gap, which is perhaps more significant than all other gaps – generation gap, cultural gap, socio-political gap, et al. And it is this combination of psychology and economy that rather 'rule' and 'runs' the world.

Mind, the Gap.

Read More