Asking directions of a local

I must confess that I am somewhat spatially challenged. I mean, even after visiting a certain place several times over, the landmarks and routes do not at all stick in mind. It becomes a new exploration each time, because everything looks different with the time of the day and direction of approach. However, my reaching destination is not greatly stressful because of the human interactions on the way.

I am scheduled to observe evening classes at a school almost on the outskirts of the city. It is after sunset and already dark when I set out the first time. Now, Kolkata is already pretty large, and with developments it is expanding further. Two hours of travel in, say, Mauritius, might cover the island nation end to end, but here, spend the same amount of time going in any direction, and you may still be within city limits. I realize it will take me quite a while to get to the suburbs on the other side, from my starting point. 

My concern is that there is no direct bus route there. Besides, I shall be slap bang in the middle of ‘office time’. That means buses overcrowded with office-goers desperate to get home. I use the term ‘overcrowded’ dramatically because ‘crowded’ is normal (remember Kolkata is peopled by a million, if not more!) An empty bus is one that you can board and find a seat, or at least, stand comfortably, maintaining personal space. In ‘overcrowded’, people hang out of the bus entrances, balanced precariously on half or less of one foot each, and the vehicle itself tilts over to one side. Obviously the bus-drivers must be immensely skilled to navigate them safe and sound through heavy traffic every single working day!

 

Part of my journey will be in the opposite direction, that is, towards the business centers, and I can expect to find ‘empty’ buses. Thereafter, I will have to compete for space, and must rethink options as I go along. The journey begins uneventfully enough, and I find a seat right at the back of the bus. Slowly the bus fills to capacity and more. Since there is no air conditioning, it soon feels hot and sticky, but everybody bears the discomfort as best they can. I notice small kindnesses as those seated move over to squeeze in small children beside them. Some others hold belongings for those standing on their laps.

From further up, I hear tempers suddenly flare, and voices rise in altercation. A woman objects to something said or done to her, a man retorts that she is only taking advantage of being a woman. Some passengers smile wryly, a peacemaker asks both sides to calm down. Closer to me two young men pick up on the irritation spewed. New rules for men, bus non-cooperation, they announce. They look around a little disappointed when nobody else acknowledges their jibe.

I feel twinges of apprehension because, yes, my spatial orientation begins to falter. The crowd muffles the shouts of the bus conductor naming the bus stops coming up. I cannot get a fix on where we are, and whether we near or far from where I should disembark. ‘Excuse me, sir’ gets the attention of the nearest regular on the route, and I ask him instead. Far yet, he nods and asks where exactly I am going. Several more heads swivel around in surprise as I mention the place (also known for its slums), and an animated discussion follows on aspects of the information I provide.

One man draws an imaginary circle in the air with his forefinger, demonstrating that I am on a long detour. I am told direct buses were available much earlier at ‘seven point’ and I would have reached destination in 10-15 minutes at most from there. I look blank and immediately tongues click. She doesn’t know the way, they look at me pityingly, and proceed to educate. Get off at the next stop and go back, advises one and some agree the point.  The man in the corner shakes his head. Nah, nah, office time, brother, he interjects, and more agree with his point. It seems the buses only pass through this ‘seven point’ region, and hence the chances are higher of my being stranded there unable to board any transport. Go point to point, the man says knowledgeably; that is, to avoid the office-returning crowd, to wherever transport is definitely available.

There is a general consensus amongst the experienced that the auto-rickshaw is my best bet from here onwards. The first man undertakes the instructing. He describes in detail the landmarks I cannot miss, the shortcuts to keep eyes open for, and pathways I should use. I am cautioned that stepping onto the flyover entails a stiff fine. The other areas are a little less lighted, but not to worry, lots of people will be going that way now, just to follow them. The other men listening in nod their agreement. They soon alert me to start moving through the crowd to exit. Thank you, I sing out to them all; mention not, they chorus back. The people packed like sardines between the seats, sway apart to let me pass.

I have no difficulty thereafter in following the very explicit directions. I find the over-bridge that gets me across the main road packed with traffic, the landmark building that I must turn off at, the dark twisting little alley beside the flyover that connects to another main road, and the auto-rickshaw stand across the way. As I head off to my final destination, I marvel at the unconditional collective cooperation I receive in such chaotic situations. Seems to me that the key to successfully asking directions of the local in India is a bit of respect for people and their cultures.

 

Challenge of the abstract

Since money became the normal medium of exchange, financials have led the critical thinking process.  Tangibles like income growths have made sense, while anything more abstract is considered impractical. With numerous financial downturns, realization dawns that to ignore abstract processes is to overlook their strong motivational forces.

The error in financial thinking, authors perceive, has been in carrying forward assumptions – e.g., assuming the words ‘strategy’ and ‘plan’ to be synonymous. The difference they hold is that ‘plan’ concerns with mission statements, goals, and budgets, while ‘strategy’ should necessarily investigate the multiple factors causing environmental change. In other words, the former depend on standard received wisdom, and the latter is often called upon to break new ground.

Rumelt writes:

A real strategy is neither a document nor a forecast but rather an overall approach based on a diagnosis of a challenge. The most important element of a strategy is a coherent viewpoint about the forces at work, not a plan. Discerning the significance of these events is harder than recounting them.

He further illustrates the faulty thinking:

In the 1990s, for instance, IBM’s basic model of layering options and peripherals atop an integrated line of mainframe computers began to fail. Demand for computing was up, but IBM’s way of providing it was down. Likewise, newspapers are now in crisis as the Internet grabs their readers and ads. Demand for information and analysis is increasing, but traditional publishing vehicles have difficulty making money from it.

Businesses suffer from their short-term definitions of normalcy going south. Fact is the characteristics of normal transforms with time, and strategy should include most if not all its new possibilities. After every crisis, a new normal invariably arises to represent reality, different from what has gone before.

Davis writes:

The new normal will be shaped by a confluence of powerful forces—some arising directly from the financial crisis and some that were at work long before it began.

He also points out that increases in the number of college graduates, and the entry of women into the workforce have boosted incomes in the past few decades. He regards both these factors as one-time influences that are spent forces today.

Thinking along the lines of standard received wisdom fosters perceptions of the future as extensions of the past. End result: crisis. That means reality has undergone change, but perceptions remain entrenched in the past to render responses to challenges incohesive. The appropriate thinking strategy for the future, must factor in possible directions of change, to make sense in the future.

I rather believe that the greater fault in the utilitarian mode of thinking is to evaluate individual worth in monetary terms. People have become comfortable with the bottomline of money ruling all transactions. They audit others in cost-benefit terms as well, although factually, the diverse people issues that are thus left unresolved contribute more to business failure than do the numbers.

Further, human motivations are more complex and unpredictable than volatile markets may be. Now, it may be that education and employment for women have become commonplace enough to lose significance as contributing factors in financial circles. But in the abstract emotional mind, their effects may be in transition to influence behaviour at a later time.

For instance, in the more orthodox regions of the world, men have social worth as breadwinners; women as homemakers have none. The feminine gender brought up to forebear, have traditionally appeased the male ego in social equations. They have been diffident in interactions, overcome with embarrassment in public conflicts with men.

The tacit social expectation is of continuance of the conditioned behaviour. Even in matters as trivial as standing in a queue, men of the region tend to routinely cut in ahead of women, banking on their learned aversion to making a scene or drawing public attention to themselves.

Although various Parliaments invoke legislations to support the weaker gender, these measures appear to merely showcase the benevolent patronage of women. In India, for instance, a bill to reserve a third of Parliamentary seats for women has been introduced. Political parties are under duress to field women candidates, and their leaders promote the candidature their own female relatives for the posts. The obvious intent is to retain governing control as puppeteer behind the scenes.

Women in these societies need to confront head on the social learning of their second-class citizenship. The point is women’s attitudes to work and relationships are yet evolving from thinking about assertiveness to acting upon it. In small strident measures, the educated and employed fractions have begun to question men taking for granted the social inequality. We may expect the emergence of a new trend when the silent majority absorbs this need for change.

In the more liberal Western nations, political leaders are also prone to utilizing gimmicks to centralize power. Reporting on party plans to raise female electoral support in UK, Street Porter writes:

Yvette Cooper, with her new no-nonsense hairdo, won plenty of coverage for her speech at the Labour Conference last week and was even referred to as a potential new leader - you can hear Labour spin doctors hard at work promoting this fantasy scenario, which is as likely as her husband Ed Balls running my local yoga centre … Cameron says he plans to increase the number of women in key posts in his team. A recently leaked policy document written by existing advisers was full of laughable suggestions about how to win our votes. A drinks party at No. 10 to celebrate successful females in business? How patronising is that!?

She writes further: 

Justine Thornton (a successful barrister) is now reduced to being touted like a handbag on the arm of hubbie Ed Miliband, styled in a non-controversial High-Street frock, and forced to endure the ghastly ritual of the 'Conference kiss' in the full glare of the media. Ed even gets his cleaning lady to wash the family car. Cameron is no better. When he held a barbecue for President Obama in Downing Street, the macho men cooked the meat while Sam Cam was reduced to dishing out the salad! 

Financial analysts call for change in the thinking process as essential to prevent further financial crises. Human factor analysts need to advocate the same, because the strategy with humans seems to remain in continuity with attitudes of a bygone era. In issues of gender and culture, historical stereotypes and prejudices are readily invoked in place of actually understanding the present. 

However, although it seems absurd to apply financial terms to people issues, there is one notable exception. Housewives, who live with more inequality than others precisely because no remuneration is involved in their social contributions, need this evaluation. These women have also learned to devalue their own worth. They tend to say they do nothing when asked about their occupation, although unpaid and unappreciated, they carry the brunt of responsibility for managing the household and raising the children.

Luhabe, a woman entrepreneur from South Africa, recommends that stay-at-home moms should be given 10% of their husbands' earnings at the least, so that the choice to be a housewife is not not made with resentment.

As Curnow quotes her view:

"And money is the currency that we use to define value of a contribution to the world, so why shouldn't we do the same for the work of bringing up children, which I think is probably the most important contribution that the world should be valuing." 

This idea would definitely resonate with all women around the world saddled with marital and familial responsibilities! Traditionally, the homemaker earns little respect and appreciation for the caring services they freely dispense around the clock. In having to pay up, husbands, and etc., would be compelled to value woman’s work by the same standards they value their own.

Dominant social groups continue to think, plan and act in the same old ways expecting to prolong the status quo advantageous to them.  In this process, to either recycle stereotypes or to perceive people as commodities becomes habit hard to break.

Factors thought to be insignificant in finance, may be highly significant in the emotional world of people. In discounting this fact, the understanding of reality remains skewed. The thinking about people needs to change drastically, and be distinct from financial thought, because the abstract challenges of Diversity are far too formidable to ignore.

References for this post:

1. Curnow, Robyn. “Why women need a 'mommy's salary'” cnn.com. CNN. October 13, 2011.  
2. Davis, Ian. “The new normal” mckinseyquarterly.com. McKinsey Quarterly. MARCH 2009. 
3. Rumelt, Richard P. “Strategy in a ‘structural break’” mckinseyquarterly.com. McKinsey Quarterly. DECEMBER 2008. 
4. Street Porter, Janet. “Women don't want fluffy gimmicks - we want power!” dailymail.co.uk. Mail Online. 3^rd October 2011. 

The socialist attitude

Perceptions of socialist attitudes tend to the negative, especially in the West. The assumptions may be of some sort of discrimination against creative enterprise nurtured in poverty-stricken populations. However, the socialistic slogan generally attributed to Karl Marx: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need may actually owe its origins to the 'right' - the moral teachings from religious discourse of times gone by! 

In response to the socialist attitude perceived in our posts on the London riots, a reader comments: 

In my opinion most people, who start life with very little, have a socialist attitude that says “those that have should give some of it to everyone else (me)”.

In societies used to outlooks of individualistic enterprise, the thought may conjure up visions of large groups of poor people feeding off other groups in parasitic existence.  The  socialist attitude would then appear to sponsor the maintenance of poverty, facilitating hooliganism and apathy to honest labour. 

The reader also writes: 

As people earn more and get a better standard of living and more possessions their opinion tends to move to the right and they then think “those who have a lot more than me should share it BUT I don’t think I should share what I have worked for with those who don’t work”.

In other words, with the gradual accumulation of personal possessions, people's interests also change, turning to self at the expense of society. I should think the larger a social organisation is, the more it needs to subscribe to certain socialistic values, if only to keep the collective together in harmony. People that live in society, rich and poor, have certain duties to the collective, in the same way that members of a family are responsible for its identity and organization. 

Democratic societies with formidable Diversity, like India for instance, have had to incorporate these values into their Constitution, assuring justice, liberty, equality and fraternity to all members within its fold. That means to carry the entirety forward to a new level of competence irrespective of caste, creed, colour and class. That also means to decrease divides between diverse social groups, and to fail to do so is to fail democracy. 

Psychologist Adler perceived the balance between social interest and self-interest, crucial for harmony. Since none can exist in isolation, people join with other people of similar background, employment, or status to form social groups. Groups co-exist with other groups, having interrelationships for the same reason, essentially to help themselves. 

Kronemyer explains:

“Social interest” … translates as “community feeling,” as opposed to one’s private interests or concerns. … If one has social interest then one evidences or enacts a “useful” style of life. If one does not have social interest then one is self-absorbed and is concerned only with one’s self. Such a style of life is “useless.”

With overt preoccupations with own wants and expectations, people desensitise to the needs of others in the same universe. In coping with the daily stresses of being in the world, they prefer to adopt the selfish style of living. It should be of no surprise then that within the prevailing sense of individualism in a rapidly complicating world, many more people believe that they alone should enjoy the fruits of labours. 

The concentrated devotion to owning more possessions, tilts the balance towards self-interest at the expense of social interest, and ultimately leads to the ethical bankruptcy witnessed in recent times. In many parts of the world, the powers-that-be as well as groups lower on the social hierarchy appears to thus lose their moral compass. 

In the community living of Christian apostles centuries earlier that the scriptures provide glimpses of, the so-called socialistic values seem to be upheld in their fair distribution among the ordinary people in society. In Acts 4, it says:

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common… There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.

It seems logical to infer therefore that, when individuals and groups share resources between them respectfully, neither question of resource control nor of unmet needs arise. True, the simplicity of the earlier times has been lost in the complexities of the present day. However, much of the change in people’s minds from then to now has been in negativity. Attitudes have not expanded to encompass Diversity, but have instead shrunk to in-groups, and competitive self-interest.

The Parable of the Bags of Gold (Matthew 25:14-30) provides insight into an effective process of harnessing abilities that could be relevant even today. It says:

Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

The master of the house in the parable was fully cognisant of the differential abilities of his employees. Present day wisdom might have advised investing all of his wealth in schemes guaranteeing maximum returns. But rather than simply boost the bottomline for himself alone, the man in power opted to provide opportunity to all his workers in accordance to their individual abilities, and share the proceeds of their work with them. 

The point is the socialist attitude does not demand doles, but exhorts those blessed with privilege to talent manage those less fortunate. Over the centuries of their existence, the scriptures have taught no different. On his return from the journey, the master in the parable rewarded each person proportionate to the labour they put in. The man that not only did no work, he further justified his action with presumptions that the employer's profit sources were dubious, got not reward but punishment for his brand of selfishness. 

In the context of the riots in London, criminal activity should indeed be dealt with in accordance to law. However, the punishments should fit the crimes. Prejudicial judgements, concerned solely with exercising power, usher in retribution, not justice. The organizational machinery has the positional clout to to make development happen; they perhaps need the will to bring outlying groups into mainstream. 

Similarly, to help others help them achieve their targets, it behoves businesses to also invest in social development; however very few do. When focused on the bottomline, corporate bodies tend to become insensitive to both people and environment. In the drive for immediate gains, they refuse to consider the future effects of depletion of natural resources. They forget that they are dependent on people within and outside the company for their survival; profit making is a distant dream unless goods and services are sold and bought.

In earlier posts on this site, on the effects of businesses reneging on their corporate social responsibility (CSR), we wrote:

The abuse of resources by production and manufacturing houses, like the indiscriminate release of industrial wastes into rivers, toxic gases polluting the air and thinning the ozone layer, have been implicated in global warming, changing climate patterns and new diseases. Indiscriminate hunting has also endangered many animal species … Multinational corporations (MNCs) have at opportunity, flouted human rights and environmental concerns in developing nations… 

Perhaps prophetically, we also wrote about a year ago, that:

Business and political compulsions have created the “conflicts” that divide people. The single-minded pursuit of advantage has retarded healthy development in human relations. It has instead borne bitter fruit – us-and-them polarizations on the basis of race, religion and culture, and vengeful reactivity. The privileged have grown richer and greedier while the poor, more disadvantaged and resentful. The accumulated negativity displays in their eagerness to embrace any cause that advocates the removal of perceived “inequalities” through violence.

In the present context of the outpouring of reactive violence, it seems clear that social interest has all but died as ethical bankruptcy becomes socially generalized. The connivance of corporate and political circles accentuates divides creating polarized groups of haves and have-nots in terms of privilege and opportunity. 

The unhealthy competition for resources raises inter-group tensions, mistrust and perceptions of social inequality. Leaders in democracies need to resurrect the values of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity in social dealings. If they are to forestall the growing disgruntlement spiralling into anarchy, they need to encourage citizenship amongst all groups of society, political, corporate and others. 

References for this post: 

1. “Chapter 4. Life in the Christian Community” usccb.org 

2. Kronemyer, David. “Alfred Adler’s Concept of “Social Interest”” phenomenologicalpsychology.com. Phenomenological Psychology. October 3rd 2009. 

3. The Diva. “CSR 3: The exercise of domination” thedivaatlarge.blogspot.com. TheDivaAtLarge. February 26, 2010. 

4. “The Parable of the Bags of Gold” biblegateway.com. BibleGateway.com. 

Altruism: Games people learn

Synopsis: In a society formed by putting different groups of people put together, the social climate developed depends on the local learning dynamics.


An independently derived culture can evolve in two ways.

Reciprocity

In isolation the evolution is convergent, maintaining the distinct, undiluted identity. In open relationships with other cultures, there is a parallel evolution, with influence and change flowing in both directions.

A cycle of reciprocity is formed. The biology of an individual generates and shape culture. At the same time, evolving culture influences the shaping genetic materials.

Cultural equilibrium

In a society formed by putting different groups of people put together, the social climate developed depends on the local learning dynamics. People tend to adapt their behaviour to this environment. They become predisposed to administering, anticipating and avoiding punishment in ways conducive to its sustenance.

Hence the different groups arrive at a ‘cultural equilibrium’ distinct from what they each have had before. Henrich et al predict that the local learning dynamics of diverse people determine how the strategies of cooperation and punishment are combined in the society.




Local learning

The researchers conducted game-playing experiments in 15 different societies on five continents including populations in Kenya, Fiji and Missouri. They used three-game experiments to test their prediction.

1. In the ultimate game (UG) experiment two anonymous players are to divide up a stake of real money in a one-shot deal. Player 1 can offer any monetary amount, even the smallest nonzero number to player 2. If the latter accepts whatever the ‘positive’ proposal is, both are rewarded but perhaps in unequal ratio. If the proposal is rejected, it is a costly punishment, since both players lose the stake.
2. In the third party punishment game (3PPG) experiment player 1 and player 2 are to divide up a stake of real money. There is however, player 3, who gets one half of the stake amount. This player decide whether the division has been fair, because player 2 has no say in the matter, and must receive whatever the other gives to him. In unequal sharing between the other two, player 3 has the option to pay out of
his/her amount to mete a costly punishment to player 1.
3. In the dictator game (DG) experiment the degree of altruism is measured. The process is the same as the first experiment, except that player 2 cannot reject the amount dictated by player 1.

Value of punishment

The games were designed to measure the degree of self-interest of players and their spirit of altruism. That is, to what extent people help others when not directly linked to them through kinship, reciprocity, reputation, or the immediate threat of punishment.

A prominent finding across cultures was the willingness to punish unfair acts. In every population tested, less-equal offers were punished more frequently. A greater willingness to punish selfishness and unfairness results in more prosocial behaviour. The researchers conclude that chastising the violations of norms allows its adherents to flourish, and hence also the genetic shaping towards altruism.

Comments/opinions, anyone??

References for ‘Altruism’ blogposts:

Gene-culture Coevolution
Disciplines Cross in Emory Anthropologist's Studies of Human Behavior

Altruism: Mystery of the prosocial

Synopsis: Leaders in organizations are left in continual dilemma whether - to develop the cooperative spirit among the diverse groups - they need to strictly impose the standards and norms of group behaviour, or be lax about them.



What makes people altruistic? A suitable answer is yet to be found to this mystery. Helpfulness, some say, comes from within. Perhaps because of a particular genetic trait inherited through generations, people are prosocial towards relatives, friends and even strangers.

Others hold that people behave in prosocial ways only because they are forced by the norms to do so. The cultural practice of rewards for those maintaining the bar and punishment for the norm-breakers, ensure that people of any particular society adhere to accepted standards of social behaviour, and think twice before deviating from them.

Cultural variations

Leaders in organizations are left in continual dilemma whether - to develop the cooperative spirit among the diverse groups - they need to strictly impose the standards and norms of group behaviour, or be lax about them.

Researchers investigating the issue have found wide cultural variations in social attitudes. That means populations across the globe do not all follow the same principles. Some societies show little overall willingness to punish, other a greater readiness to do so. Some cultures also fault excesses in generosity in the same way as selfishness.

Codependence?

In multicultural society or in any company aspiring to a global presence, the problem is of integration, and getting members of a crosscultural workforce to work together. What should be the basis of cooperation across communities in society? How are managers and supervisors to get individuals of the majority race and culture to cooperate with other minority groups?

Wilson and Lumsden propose that prosocial behaviour is carried forward by sociobiology. Genes and culture are co-dependent, meaning that they have a mutual influence on one another. The theorists say that ‘gene-culture coevolution’, is crucial to developing the appropriate neural network of the mind.

Thereby, people of different cultures in the same environment can also evolve together to behave in a common fashion. The cultural information driving the process are the stories, beliefs, and ceremonies shared symbolically among the individuals constituting that society.

The rules

Certain primary and secondary "epigenetic rules" control organizing the genetic patterns. These lead to the genomic expression of the “coevolution”:

· Primary epigenetic rules are inflexible. They imposed restrictions in line with the individual’s genetic inheritance. This information shapes the formation of the external senses, and their sensory range. As a result the scope is set from the initial filtering of inputs to perceptual abilities involved in the functioning of vision, hearing, taste, and smell.
· Secondary epigenetic rules selectively transmit variants of cultural information. These develop the unique individual traits and capacities like temperament, personality and beliefs.

Changing cultural opportunities shifts the balance of responses between the primary and secondary rules, and hence exerts important effects on the capacity of the individual mind for self-organization. Thus altruistic behaviour can spread through the population of society irrespective of kinship between groups.

Cont’d 2…games people learn