“Corporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise. A ‘flat’ organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
I do not think that flattening the organizational structure is a good idea.
On one hand a flatter structure can encourage collegiality and cooperation, as the statement says. People are less likely to be upset to find that somebody at a similar level is earning way more than them. This would also encourage cooperation as there will be no competition to get a little ahead in the race. This would undoubtedly cut the stress associated with the job.
On the other hand a flatter structure will discourage competition which will, in turn, discourage performance. Employees will not have any incentive to do things better than their peers. Such a culture may discourage performers and encourage mediocrity. The best performing people may tend to leave for organizations that take into account their hard work and desire to excel.
I feel that in essence flattening organizational structure is a populist, egalitarian, socialist step that can severely affect performance of a corporate on the whole. Like all grand socialist ideas they do sound good on paper but never work in the practical world as they are too idealistic. A better idea may be to encourage team work by linking rewards to both personal and team performance. People in general will not wake up to perform or be team players if it does not benefit them in a concrete way.
The cliched climb up the corporate ladder has to be visible in terms of milestones and rise in salary: which is the whole rationale behind having many ranks and salary grades. I agree that this creates rivalry but it also gives people reason to do things in a better way. However when performance is linked to team work along with individual performance, people will desist from being unnecessarily hostile to each other. Flattening the organizational structure is definitely not the answer in a capitalistic corporate environment.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Of Saving Energy and International Cooperation
“It is unrealistic to expect individual nations to make, independently, the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy. International leadership and worldwide cooperation are essential if we expect to protect the world’s energy resources for future generations.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
I agree with the statement above. If we expect to protect the world’s energy resources for future generations, it is definitely not possible without international leadership and worldwide cooperation. The reasons are not too difficult to fathom.
The current world order can be seen as consisting of a few blocs: Western Bloc (Basically all developed and first world countries like USA, European Union, Japan, Australia, Canada etc.), BRIC countries(upcoming economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China growing at a stupendous rate) , Islamic Union (basically oil rich developing countries with Islam as their state religion like UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar), other second and third world developing countries and the countries in total chaos (countries with lowest human development index like North Korea, Sudan, Ethiopia, Iraq and Afghanistan). Each bloc has different needs and very few, if any, are prepared to think of long term solutions.
Developed countries are the biggest consumers of energy resources. Even while they preach to developing countries to cut down their fuel consumption, they do not seem to be implementing the same for themselves. The only exception to this rule is the European Union (EU) that has invested more money than anybody in finding energy conservation solutions. USA on the other hand refuses to cut its fuel consumption, cut down its green house emissions or cut down its fuel subsidies that keeps fuel prices artificially low and consumption high. This gives an easy excuse to developing countries like India and China to not do any thing about their ever-increasing energy thirst. For the poor countries it does not even make sense to talk about expensive energy saving initiatives as they barely have money to even feed their people, what to talk about energy sensitivities!
The basic problem is that nobody wants to put a brake on the current energy-dependent development in their respective countries. Political concerns and obsession with its super-power status prevents US from doing anything about it. China sees the moral preaching to cut down energy consumption as a Western attempt to curb its growing power. Taking cue from these two giants most of the other countries refuse to do anything in name of "national interests".
All in all a loose-loose situation for the future generations wrt energy security. Without international leadership and worldwide cooperation the future for them indeed looks bleak.
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
I agree with the statement above. If we expect to protect the world’s energy resources for future generations, it is definitely not possible without international leadership and worldwide cooperation. The reasons are not too difficult to fathom.
The current world order can be seen as consisting of a few blocs: Western Bloc (Basically all developed and first world countries like USA, European Union, Japan, Australia, Canada etc.), BRIC countries(upcoming economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China growing at a stupendous rate) , Islamic Union (basically oil rich developing countries with Islam as their state religion like UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar), other second and third world developing countries and the countries in total chaos (countries with lowest human development index like North Korea, Sudan, Ethiopia, Iraq and Afghanistan). Each bloc has different needs and very few, if any, are prepared to think of long term solutions.
Developed countries are the biggest consumers of energy resources. Even while they preach to developing countries to cut down their fuel consumption, they do not seem to be implementing the same for themselves. The only exception to this rule is the European Union (EU) that has invested more money than anybody in finding energy conservation solutions. USA on the other hand refuses to cut its fuel consumption, cut down its green house emissions or cut down its fuel subsidies that keeps fuel prices artificially low and consumption high. This gives an easy excuse to developing countries like India and China to not do any thing about their ever-increasing energy thirst. For the poor countries it does not even make sense to talk about expensive energy saving initiatives as they barely have money to even feed their people, what to talk about energy sensitivities!
The basic problem is that nobody wants to put a brake on the current energy-dependent development in their respective countries. Political concerns and obsession with its super-power status prevents US from doing anything about it. China sees the moral preaching to cut down energy consumption as a Western attempt to curb its growing power. Taking cue from these two giants most of the other countries refuse to do anything in name of "national interests".
All in all a loose-loose situation for the future generations wrt energy security. Without international leadership and worldwide cooperation the future for them indeed looks bleak.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
आवाज़
रोता नहीं, खून-ऐ-जिगर बहाता हूँ
लिखता नहीं, दाग दिल के दिखाता हूँ
वतन मेरा लहू में है डूबा
जगाने लोगों को आवाज़ लगाता हूँ ...
लिखता नहीं, दाग दिल के दिखाता हूँ
वतन मेरा लहू में है डूबा
जगाने लोगों को आवाज़ लगाता हूँ ...
To Censor or Not to Censor
“In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship.”
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.
In order to comment on the extent a government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs, we need to understand the thought process that may go behind the idea of censorship and see how justified it is.
I can see two basic dimensions to censorship.
Firstly, people in general and societies in particular are resistant to change and different ideas. If anything goes or seems to go against their beliefs, way of living, religious beliefs, sexual beliefs; they tend to react negatively against it. The intensity may be low or high. The protests witnessed against Danish cartoons, Da Vinci Code and paintings of M. F. Hussein are typical examples of how people can react to expressions they feel go against their beliefs. The same thing applies to views on sexuality, society, social order and behavior. In cliche, what is sauce for gander may not be sauce for geese. In these cases governments may tend to use censorship to avoid trouble or simply to build on a vote-bank.
For this case my approach would not be censorship but freedom with responsibility. In principle I believe in what Voltaire said,"I may not agree with you but I will defend your right to say it". However such freedom has to be enjoyed responsibly. Programmes can be rated for age and people can decide what they want to watch and what they do not want to watch. All adult human beings who have come of age should be free to decide what is good for them. Government has no business in poking its nose in civil liberties and moral policing. That being said, this freedom cannot be abused to incite malicious hatred and propaganda against any community or the nation.
Another dimension to censorship is the idea of a nation. Nations are political concepts made to promote stability and prevent wars. No piece of land proclaims itself to be America, Europe or Asia. At the end of the day nationhood is a man-made idea and national boundaries are man-made boundaries. Having said that, the concept is necessary to maintain peace and order in the world. Nations try to preserve themselves and sometimes try to undermine others. One of the tools to do this is propaganda. Nations will try to block such propaganda using censorship. Nations need to be free to use censorship to stop propaganda from enemy countries. I think this is justified as if this is not done, propaganda can affect the process of nation-building and cause instability and hardships for a lot of people in the long run.
Summarizing, censorship may be needed to block out malicious propaganda and hate campaigns. Barring that modern, liberated society has no place for censorship. It just needs to enjoy this freedom in a responsible manner.
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.
In order to comment on the extent a government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs, we need to understand the thought process that may go behind the idea of censorship and see how justified it is.
I can see two basic dimensions to censorship.
Firstly, people in general and societies in particular are resistant to change and different ideas. If anything goes or seems to go against their beliefs, way of living, religious beliefs, sexual beliefs; they tend to react negatively against it. The intensity may be low or high. The protests witnessed against Danish cartoons, Da Vinci Code and paintings of M. F. Hussein are typical examples of how people can react to expressions they feel go against their beliefs. The same thing applies to views on sexuality, society, social order and behavior. In cliche, what is sauce for gander may not be sauce for geese. In these cases governments may tend to use censorship to avoid trouble or simply to build on a vote-bank.
For this case my approach would not be censorship but freedom with responsibility. In principle I believe in what Voltaire said,"I may not agree with you but I will defend your right to say it". However such freedom has to be enjoyed responsibly. Programmes can be rated for age and people can decide what they want to watch and what they do not want to watch. All adult human beings who have come of age should be free to decide what is good for them. Government has no business in poking its nose in civil liberties and moral policing. That being said, this freedom cannot be abused to incite malicious hatred and propaganda against any community or the nation.
Another dimension to censorship is the idea of a nation. Nations are political concepts made to promote stability and prevent wars. No piece of land proclaims itself to be America, Europe or Asia. At the end of the day nationhood is a man-made idea and national boundaries are man-made boundaries. Having said that, the concept is necessary to maintain peace and order in the world. Nations try to preserve themselves and sometimes try to undermine others. One of the tools to do this is propaganda. Nations will try to block such propaganda using censorship. Nations need to be free to use censorship to stop propaganda from enemy countries. I think this is justified as if this is not done, propaganda can affect the process of nation-building and cause instability and hardships for a lot of people in the long run.
Summarizing, censorship may be needed to block out malicious propaganda and hate campaigns. Barring that modern, liberated society has no place for censorship. It just needs to enjoy this freedom in a responsible manner.
Experience, Production and Profit
The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by a processor of frozen foods:
"Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since our company will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits."
On the face of it the argument looks a bit convincing. However a closer look exposes some flaws in it.
The writer claims, "Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient". This is partially true. Over a long period of time growing and progressive organizations do tend to learn from their mistakes and do things better. This can make them more efficient. However production cost is assumed to be a simplistic function of learning from experience over time.
This argument does not take into account other factors that come into play over time. Production cost may also come down due to advancement in technology, economy of scale, cheaper and readily available credit, cheap and abundant labour or securing favourable contracts by virtue of networking over time. On the other hand production cost may actually go up over time due to changes in regulations, increase in cost of raw materials, shortage of labour, shortage of resources or simply inflation. Over time a lot of things can happen but the writer singles out experience and takes it as the basis of the whole argument. This in itself is not a good start.
The writer further says, "In colour film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food". First of all, printing is not the same as food processing. Food processing can be machinery and labour intensive. It is highly exposed to raw material cost fluctuations, labour market whims and technological changes when compared with the print industry.
Secondly the argument itself is being applied in an inconsistent way by correlating technology with experience. The fall in price of print fell due to technological innovations. The industry did not learn to do print in a better way using experience and old technology but found new and cheaper ways of doing the same thing. Crediting the price fall to experience alone is incorrect. Experience may lead to investments in technology and innovative, patented ways of production. However this is not always true.
Lastly, the writer concludes, "And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits". At the end of the day I believe it is not how many years you live but what you do when you are alive that defines you. Wisdom cannot be linked to how many years we have been on earth but to how much are eyes were really open in this duration. Similarly a company cannot claim to be making profits just because it has "been there" for 25 years. There simply have to be more reasons. Even if we assume that production prices indeed went down, it is very much possible that selling prices went down as well in face of a cut-throat competition. That would mean lesser profits and refute the whole argument.
All in all, the writer tries to correlate experience with falling costs and falling costs with increased profits. The first correlation focuses on only one aspect of experience and tries to show it as the only factor affecting production cost. The example used tries to attribute a technological development to experience. Even though it may be true, the same is not guaranteed. Finally correlating falling production costs with profits may be ok if the selling prices have remained stable or increased over time as well.
"Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since our company will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits."
On the face of it the argument looks a bit convincing. However a closer look exposes some flaws in it.
The writer claims, "Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient". This is partially true. Over a long period of time growing and progressive organizations do tend to learn from their mistakes and do things better. This can make them more efficient. However production cost is assumed to be a simplistic function of learning from experience over time.
This argument does not take into account other factors that come into play over time. Production cost may also come down due to advancement in technology, economy of scale, cheaper and readily available credit, cheap and abundant labour or securing favourable contracts by virtue of networking over time. On the other hand production cost may actually go up over time due to changes in regulations, increase in cost of raw materials, shortage of labour, shortage of resources or simply inflation. Over time a lot of things can happen but the writer singles out experience and takes it as the basis of the whole argument. This in itself is not a good start.
The writer further says, "In colour film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food". First of all, printing is not the same as food processing. Food processing can be machinery and labour intensive. It is highly exposed to raw material cost fluctuations, labour market whims and technological changes when compared with the print industry.
Secondly the argument itself is being applied in an inconsistent way by correlating technology with experience. The fall in price of print fell due to technological innovations. The industry did not learn to do print in a better way using experience and old technology but found new and cheaper ways of doing the same thing. Crediting the price fall to experience alone is incorrect. Experience may lead to investments in technology and innovative, patented ways of production. However this is not always true.
Lastly, the writer concludes, "And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits". At the end of the day I believe it is not how many years you live but what you do when you are alive that defines you. Wisdom cannot be linked to how many years we have been on earth but to how much are eyes were really open in this duration. Similarly a company cannot claim to be making profits just because it has "been there" for 25 years. There simply have to be more reasons. Even if we assume that production prices indeed went down, it is very much possible that selling prices went down as well in face of a cut-throat competition. That would mean lesser profits and refute the whole argument.
All in all, the writer tries to correlate experience with falling costs and falling costs with increased profits. The first correlation focuses on only one aspect of experience and tries to show it as the only factor affecting production cost. The example used tries to attribute a technological development to experience. Even though it may be true, the same is not guaranteed. Finally correlating falling production costs with profits may be ok if the selling prices have remained stable or increased over time as well.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
God and I
Do I believe in God, I wonder. The honest answer is that I don't know. The world seems to be working on principles of power, control, influence, ruthlessness, secrecy and vision. Most people seem to be programmed to think the way they do and never question their existence. Yet there is a subtle promise that as you sow, so shall you reap. Or is it: cover your tracks nicely lest you are screwed? In essence there are very few answers. So at one stage one does not care about questions or answers. There is only wonder about where we come from and where we go, about the reason of our existence and the "famous" purpose of our life.
I, for one, feel tired with the need to understand and know. I just want to know enough to be able to avoid problems and be happy. And in the process may be spread this happiness to some people around me. To live a life of strength and honor as a hidden instrument of light (note to St. Assisi). No limelight for me please. Light because it is my nature to like light. Dark is not my forte. I have nothing against dark and nothing for light. I just stay where I can perform and be happy. Comparatively. In RPG parlance I would see myself as a Lawful Neutral.
Light and Dark compliment each other. At the end of the day one cannot exist without the other. Eternally in conflict and yet they complete each other. What's that got to do with God, I fail to understand. Listening to people talking about (and making a case for) Gods and Devils, it is pretty hard to distinguish one from the other. I refuse to believe in a God that is vindictive, small-minded, insecure and restrictive. Is God omnipotent when he has no control over Satan? My God, if there is one, is all-accepting, all-loving entity with a very big heart. Qualities that I see somewhat in message of Advaita, Jesus (Sermon on the Mount) and Buddha (Middle Path). I cannot claim to understand HIM but I do believe in existence of a supernatural power, a force beyond our control that directs our life. But not for any other purpose than growth, understanding and fun. So yes, may be in that sense, I do believe in God.
But more than that I believe in being a good human being, improving constantly, living free and having fun. Three cheers to freethinkers! :)
I, for one, feel tired with the need to understand and know. I just want to know enough to be able to avoid problems and be happy. And in the process may be spread this happiness to some people around me. To live a life of strength and honor as a hidden instrument of light (note to St. Assisi). No limelight for me please. Light because it is my nature to like light. Dark is not my forte. I have nothing against dark and nothing for light. I just stay where I can perform and be happy. Comparatively. In RPG parlance I would see myself as a Lawful Neutral.
Light and Dark compliment each other. At the end of the day one cannot exist without the other. Eternally in conflict and yet they complete each other. What's that got to do with God, I fail to understand. Listening to people talking about (and making a case for) Gods and Devils, it is pretty hard to distinguish one from the other. I refuse to believe in a God that is vindictive, small-minded, insecure and restrictive. Is God omnipotent when he has no control over Satan? My God, if there is one, is all-accepting, all-loving entity with a very big heart. Qualities that I see somewhat in message of Advaita, Jesus (Sermon on the Mount) and Buddha (Middle Path). I cannot claim to understand HIM but I do believe in existence of a supernatural power, a force beyond our control that directs our life. But not for any other purpose than growth, understanding and fun. So yes, may be in that sense, I do believe in God.
But more than that I believe in being a good human being, improving constantly, living free and having fun. Three cheers to freethinkers! :)
Friday, July 18, 2008
युद्ध
हर हँसी , हर मुस्कुराहट छोड़ कर
गुमसुम दूर सन्नाटों को निहारती
सुंदर सी दो आँखें
क्या छोड़ दिया क्या खो दिया,
दिल जो भर आया तो थोड़ा सा रो लिया
क्या समझाए और क्या कोई समझे
एक इच्छा , एक तमन्ना, एक सपना
पानी के बुलबुले या चट्टानी इरादे
बुलंद संघर्ष या झूठे वायदे
छोड़ते हैं समय पर तय करने के लिए,
चलते हैं वीर अब एक युद्ध और लड़ने के लिए ...
गुमसुम दूर सन्नाटों को निहारती
सुंदर सी दो आँखें
क्या छोड़ दिया क्या खो दिया,
दिल जो भर आया तो थोड़ा सा रो लिया
क्या समझाए और क्या कोई समझे
एक इच्छा , एक तमन्ना, एक सपना
पानी के बुलबुले या चट्टानी इरादे
बुलंद संघर्ष या झूठे वायदे
छोड़ते हैं समय पर तय करने के लिए,
चलते हैं वीर अब एक युद्ध और लड़ने के लिए ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)