“`Detachment from the Self” in the Workplace

About ten years ago I read a Hindu text, the Bagavad Gita, and recently decided to read it again. It tells a story of a young prince, Arjuna, readying to engage in a battle against his relatives and former associates. With the battle soon to begin,, he has reservations about fighting and killing his kith and kin. As he hesitates, his charioteer reveals himself to be the Lord Krishna who lecture him and goes on to argue that he should fight. Krishna tells Arjuna that he is incapable of taking any lives and that only he, Krishna, can create or destroy life. Krishna then goes on to advise that going into this battle, Arjuna should set aside the effect of the outcome, good or bad, on him personally. He further points out that not only in battle but in any enterprise one should be totally committed and focused and not be distracted by the self, concentrating all the energy on the outcome Reading this I thought back to my working days and my experience supported Krishna’s advice. I was fortunate in that the majority of my associates intuitively practiced the personal detachment from results. A few however, were primarily motivated by personal gain. Some were driven by greed or success while others by the need to prove their worth to themselves or others. They made decisions, not for benefit of the outcome, the team or the organization but to further their own agendas and careers. In general, with a few exceptions, I found people who were driven primarily by a quest for personal success, be it career or ego, to be less wise and less successful in the long run (I guess one could debate what constitutes success) than those who naively put the endeavor first. The problem is that whenever one undertakes a task, plays a game or goes into battle and is focused on themselves, they are not giving their full attention on the enterprise and the results will be sub-optimal. I remember playing football as a kid, and whenever instead of charging ahead, totally involved in the play, I worried about myself, invariably I would not make the play and worse, get injured. Having said that, the degree to which one benefits from putting personal ambitions aside, in the workplace it depends on the nature of the organization and the integrity and experience of the leadership. There needs to exist a sense that one will be evaluated fairly and on the results of the actions and not on other factors. Also there needs to be enough skill within the organization to recognize the quality of the outcome. I remember years ago, I along with a half dozen of my colleagues were interviewing a young scientist. He had recently earned his PHD and was working for a small company. He lamented that within the organization there was no one who could recognize his achievements. I assured him that here there would be at least a dozen people who, not only, would recognize his accomplishments but also any blunders. He took the job.

Is it Really Small vs. Large Government?

The recent outbreak of the measles has quickly moved into the political arena with two of the Republican presidential contenders, Chris Christie and Rand Paul, essentially saying that vaccines are very good but people should not be forced to vaccinate their children. Rand Paul goes further to say that vaccination has on occasion brought on severe mental problems. This argument that its good but should not be imposed on all and should be strictly voluntary gets to the heart of one of the differences between the Right and Left, the individual vs. society. Neither politician claimed that the vaccines are not good for society. They stand for minimizing restrictions on an individual’s rights. Or so it seems. Why then at the height of the Ebola outbreak, the right was quite vocal about restricting movement of individuals who potentially contracted Ebola? Governor Christie forced a nurse returning from West Africa to live in a tent in isolation for several weeks. Imposing on an individual’s freedom did not enter the discussion. Both the isolation and the vaccination were taking away freedoms for the benefit of society as a whole. Maybe it’s because in the case of Ebola, a few were disrupted for potentially the benefit of many while the vaccine was all giving something up for potentially a few. Following 9/11, after the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians, the Right had no difficulty in abrogating some rights of individuals, spending a trillion dollars and sacrificing the lives of thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians, to prevent a reoccurrence. At the same time refusing to even bend a little, allowing minor firearm controls or spending a fraction of the moneys spent on the “War on Terror” on social improvements to reduce the gang violence in the inner cities saving an even greater number of lives. So again, why the difference? One possibility is that Ebola was scary and fear motivates the Right whereas the Measles not so much; or that gang violence effects the “other” and isn’t a threat to middle class whites. Maybe it’s because in the case of Ebola and terrorism the threat is from the outside and our machismo demands we fight it. Whatever it is I don’t think it’s a big/small government or an individual liberties issue.

Confluence of Terms Adds to Confusion About the Middle East

A number of years ago, on one of the cable networks I watched a series on Islam filmed by a South Korean crew. Among the presentations were programs on Muslim food and Muslim dress. Then they showed programs on Islam in Africa and China. In the Muslim food and dress programs they featured Arab food and dress while in the Islam in Africa they showed Muslim women celebrating regional festivals topless. The contradictions were innumerable. It is very difficult to interpret news reports relating to the Middle East. Religions are mixed with ethnicities, nationalities with religion, ideologies with ethnicities and culture with race. This, though predominant in discussions of the Middle East, is not unique to it. The nation of India is often confused with the Hindu religion and a non-existent Indian ethnicity. In the case of India, confusion stems from ignorance whereas confusion regarding the Middle East often is part of a strategy. All the cultural traditions in the Arabian Peninsula are portrayed as Muslim in the Western press though Arabs represent only a minor part of the billion plus Muslims In the press one often sees and hears about long beards worn by men in robes as Muslim beards. The mutilation of girls through female circumcision, again a tradition in parts of Africa and Asia practiced by both Muslims and non-Muslims is presented as a requirement in Islam as are“ honor killings” and other regional traditions. Not all Muslim women wear hijabs. Teenage girls in Chechnya dress like any European teenagers and as mentioned above in Sub Saharan Africa sometimes tribal women wear no tops. One hears a lot about the head covering of some Muslim women but not Orthodox Jews nor Mennonites (in Medieval Times Christian women wore something that strongly resembles a hijab). And by the Way Amish men and the Duck Dynasty also sport long beards. Islam is a religion with adherents of all ethnicities and cultures whereas there are Christian Arabs in the West Bank and Egypt and a Jew(ethnic and religious) sits in Parliament in Iran. When it comes to discussing Israel it becomes even more convoluted because of the concentration of religion, ethnicity and culture. Criticism of Israel is often condemned as anti-Semitism or an attack on the Jewish religion. Judaism, the basis for both Christianity and later Islam, is an ancient religion predominantly practiced by one ethnic group though there are Ethiopians and a small number of converts from other ethnic groups that practice the religion. There are Jews throughout the world, who for the most part are atheists and do not practice any religion. The term Semite refers to a race and, though it includes Arabs, is most commonly used to refer to Jews especially when used as anti-Semitism. Zionism is an ideology attributed to ethnic Jews but also endorsed by a large number of Fundamentalist Christians. Israel is a nation, though aspiring to be a Jewish theocracy, has within its population, Muslims (about 20%), Christians of various denominations, agnostics and atheists. As a result, a statement made by an Iranian or a member of Hamas saying they want to destroy Israel, though they may mean the elimination of a form of government, in the press it is often interpreted as eliminating a religion, Judaism; an ethnic group, Jews; or a race, Semites. Even in the minds of bigots who rail against “Jews” I suspect it isn’t clear whether their rage is aimed at adherents of a religion, members or an ethnic group, proponents of an ideology or citizens of a nation. Though often it is politically advantageous to lump them all into one, they are not the same and to really understand what is going on in the world, it is necessary to understand the difference. In Israel there is much debate relating to the occupation of Palestinian lands and the quest for a theocracy. There and within the predominantly Muslim countries the difference between the terms is clear and a discussion can be had without confusion. Unfortunately in this country it is almost impossible to have a meaningful debate. A critic of Israel is too often accused of being anti-Semitic or if an ethnic Jew, a self-loathing one and an offense committed by someone proclaiming to be Muslim is an offence by Islam, while a critic of Muslims automatically is tagged an Islamaphobe.

Post Racial?

There is much focus on race in the news lately; the shooting deaths of unarmed black men; the militarization of the Ferguson police in response to racial demonstration; lack of awards to black actors and directors and the Kanye West rant against a white musician winning over a black. Have we indeed progressed? I remember, following the Civil Rights movement there was an attempt in the media to downplay racial differences. Commercials would show blacks and whites in the same scenes pushing the same products. Children were being taught that all people are the same and differences in skin color are no different than the color of one’s hair. But that quickly changed. Advertising changed. Adds targeting a white demographic now no longer included black actors while other adds could be directed at exclusively black audiences. It’s not clear to me why or how, but within a decade political movements (Black Panthers, Black Muslims) emphasizing the racial difference while fighting for black power, gained strength. No more was the focus on “everyone is the same” but now the battle cry became “different but equal”. Of course the racists loved this preaching fostering a further separation of the races. They realized that wherever there is a declared difference, there cannot be equality. The more powerful segment, whether by virtue of numbers or resources, will always have the upper hand. Back in the early sixties I remember walking down a street in Washington DC. Strolling in front of me was a young, interracial couple obviously on a date. Over the course of a few blocks, several cars slowed down, rolled down their windows and yelled racial slurs at the white man. During the same period, fulfilling my military obligation, I was stationed in a small compound in Baltimore. Just outside the front gate was a bar. One night, returning to the base after a night out I stopped at the front desk to check in. Behind the desk was a black sargent who was speaking to a shaken light skinned young man who looked like he might have a bit of African blood. He was explaining to the sargent that he wanted to stop at the corner bar for a drink. The bouncer asked for his ID. He was 21 but the card indicated his race as Negro so he was refused entry. He was a well-educated northerner and was perplexed. He had never faced such overt discrimination and didn’t know how to respond. The sargent told him that this still happens down here and suggested he go to black neighborhood for a night out. So where are we now? Today I can go to an upscale restaurant even further south, in Charleston and as often as not see an interracial couple. In the same area we frequent a more modest restaurant and it is not uncommon to see small gathering of friends that include both black and white. There has been great progress. In part, it is due to our increased mobility, better education and the fading of the slave era propaganda claiming the racial inferiority of Negros to justify their enslavement. So when I hear complaints about the absence of black representation at entertainment awards or in the academies I have mixed emotions. On the one hand I think it is driven by discrimination whereas on the other I think we may have made more progress than I think and the reason there are not more blacks may be just that, on this occasion, there were not as many good performers and we were not pursuing the “different but equal” but the “everyone is the same” philosophy and seeing race no greater a differentiator than the color of hair. Or maybe I’m just blindly optimistic.

Cleanliness is Next to Godliness

There is an old adage that says “cleanliness is next to Godliness”. Of late I am starting to question its veracity. I came to this country from Germany at the age of 10 and arriving in NYC I was struck at how dirty the streets were and just the general messiness. We were refugees in Germany after WWII with our last couple of years in Munich. Even about 6 years after the war there were still many signs of destruction but the streets and people were clean. Before retiring a few years ago I made a number of business trips to Japan and was also struck by the neatness and order. Cab drivers in Tokyo wore white gloves and on the headrests were crocheted white doylies. When I reflect on the combatants in the war, The Germans and Japanese were by far the most barbaric and cruel. I started to wonder if there might be a connection between cleanliness and not Godliness, but cruelty. Today I read an article in the Huffington Post about how many showers one should take. In it the author suggests that frequent cleaning destroys “good” bacteria and one might consider bathing every two or three days. Several months ago I ran into another discussion (I think it may be one of the Ted Talks) where the speaker spoke of the thousands of different kinds of bacteria on the surface of our skin and that some of them may interact with our organs and be critical to proper function of our various systems. Last week I saw commentary on a study that indicated that the “good bacteria” in our digestive system somehow interacts in a positive way with the brain and that probiotics may reduce depression and increase a general sense of happiness. So my question is: does the bacteria destroyed by excessive cleaning of ourselves and our surrounding somehow affect the portion of our brain responsible for kindness and empathy? Maybe the cruelty exhibited by the Germans and Japanese during the war was contributed to by their pursuit of Godliness through their cleanliness.

An Idea for Workplace Organization

Before retiring I spent many years organizing the activities within an engineering/manufacturing operation where we designed, developed and manufactured a wide range of products and processes all based upon one technology providing them to vastly different applications and customer types. Unlike many manufacturing organizations (at least as I imagined them), we did not limit the work we took on to that which fit a set of processes currently in place, but often accepted jobs requiring us to devise, not only new processes but often new tools. This was the greatest and most differentiated value we brought to the marketplace. At the center of the basic structure was a product engineering staff whose responsibilities included interacting with customers to understand their needs, and then design products that fit our existing facilities and capabilities if possible. If needed capabilities did not exist, they coordinate with the process engineering and manufacturing groups to develop them. The manufacturing arm was comprised of a number of work areas with specialized skills and facilities through which the work flowed. We had about a dozen or so such areas. The work flow was erratic. For example: some jobs would go from department 1 to7 to 3 to 7 then 6 ending in 12; While other might go from 2 to 5 to 6 to 5 to 11 to 2 to 7 to 12. The mix was varied, not only in type, but also volume and complexity. Some tasks would require skills developed over years while others had very simple steps that could be taught in less than an hour. On rare occasions we had demand for enough volume of a single product to warrant setting up a series of operations with dedicated staff, through which flowed the same product in the same sequence. We tried to walk a tight rope, balancing efficiency (cost) and reliability of delivery. If we staffed each department to the maximum capacity we could expect, there would be too much idle time. If we staffed to the most efficient level, we would not make our delivery commitment. We made some effort to have a bit of flexibility, but with volume of work within a department varying even within a given day, it was at best marginally effective. Prior to my retirement, I started exploring another possible way to organize ourselves to increase our efficiency, improve our reliability and to maximize “quality of life” for our associates. We would start by reducing the staff of each manufacturing department to a supervisor and enough of the most experienced individuals to handle the absolute minimum level of work anticipated. Each job would have a process flow maintained on the network with anticipated arrival dates in each department adjusted automatically as work was completed in a given area. The heads of the departments would then compare the capacity within the department with the impending demand, and if needed, call for a qualified associate from a pool of flex staff. The supervisors would be measured on the quality of work done in their department, the cost (mostly labor) and the amount of “wait” time (the time a job was in the department waiting for work to be done on it). I envisioned a division within which resides a pool of associates with varied skills and skill levels needed in all manufacturing departments from which, as the workload increased beyond the minimum staffing within their departments, the supervisors could draw additional help . The manager of this pool would oversee the training and staffing and would be measured on the availability of the skill at the proper level and the quality of the work of the flex staff on each assignment. Idle time within the division is to be another measure of their performance. If the skill called for by manufacturing was not available, the department supervisor would request an individual by name who they then train for the processes. When any of the flex staff was idle, the manager would coordinate with the manufacturing departments to provide “on the job” training during their slower times. The supervisors would select the processes theyteach to the flax staff, choosing ones that they anticipated would be of greatest value to them in the future, Thus, the flexible staff gains experience and advances their skills as they move from job to job or are provided special training. Their pay would be determined by three factors. There would be a number of pay grades each with a wide range of salaries. The pay grade for an associate is to be determined by the complexity and the number of processes they were qualified to perform. Exactly where within that range their pay fell, is to be determined by their performance at each assignment as reported by the manufacturing supervisors. This would be their base pay. On top of the base pay they would earn bonuses, which would represent a significant part of the total pay based on the time allotted for the task and the level of skill provided. From a “quality of life” stand point, the flex tech, though some of the work may be mundane, would not be stuck in a tedious routine, changing from department to department and process to process. They would also be learning new skills which, along with the quality and quantity of their work, would be reflected in their pay. Arrangements could be made between the manufacturing supervisors and the flex division manager to accommodate wishes of associates to move from a flex to a permanent position or vice versa. Inevitably there will be idle time in the division. Training in a new skill may not be practical at times, in which case the idle flex associates would be encouraged to use the time to pursue on-line courses. People differ not only in their basic capabilities but also in their character. Some would prefer the comfort of working in one department on a narrow set of processes, while others get bored doing similar tasks and enjoy doing a wide range of chores and continually learning new ones. This system would accommodate both characteristics. In practice each job would have a routing indicating the process required in each department and estimated touch time (the time the parts are actually worked on for each). When a job enters, the department will estimate its completion time. Based on this, the system calculates the estimated time of arrival for each department and the total amount of time required of each skill level. The supervisor, equipped with a list of available individuals and their qualifications in the flex pool, could call for a specific person or a skill for a specified time. The department would be charged based on the time and the assigned value of the skill. The supervisor has an incentive to hire the lowest skill level required for the task. If, because of availability or quality of work or other factors, they choose someone with a higher skill, they pay a higher price. Other factors they may consider in making their selection could be the work habits and compatibility of the flex associate with the permanent staff. If properly structured, such a system should incentivize the staff at all levels to improve the reliability of delivery commitments while improving the efficiency and quality of life

Who is Killing the Children?

A couple of weeks ago I happened to watch a special about the latest Israel/Gaza war on Democracy Now . The segment featured Nome Chomsky an MIT history and linguistics professor known for his progressive views and a non-xenophobic take on US history (his history book was banned from some Southern public schools) In the discussion he mentioned a Bob Shafer piece on CBS where he opined on the conflict. The host, Am y Goodman, showed the clip in which Bob Shafer denounced Hamas for causing the deaths of so many Palestinian children. During his presentation Shafer showed an old clip of Golda Meyer saying that “she can forgive Palestinians for killing Israeli children but she cannot forgive them for making Israel kill theirs”. (may not be the exact words). Nome Chomsky then accused Shafer of reciting Israeli propaganda as he claimed was typical of most US media. My reaction upon hearing Golda Meyer’s comment was: a nice catchy phrase but what a ridicules statement. No one can make a country do heinous things. Israel chose to use a method of war which results in heavy “collateral” damage to minimize the loss of its own soldiers (to date the ratio of casualties are over 2,000, mostly civilians versus 67 of whom there were only three civilians). Assume for the moment Israel has a legitimate reason for attacking Gaza. It claimed that its mission was to destroy tunnels used by Hamas to infiltrate Israel and carry out terrorist acts. There are many tactics Israel could have employed to this end. It could send in ground troops without the bombardment. After all, Israel has great military superiority in manpower, weapons, intelligence and training without including its air-power. This tactic, however, would result in greater Israeli casualties but on the other hand not inflict as much damage on the civilian population. (Years ago I saw a piece early on in the last war with Iraq which showed a tank bombarding a tenement building from which a sniper was firing. The commentator mentioned a protest by the British forces also fighting in the area about the disproportionate use of force. They said that in this situation, instead of killing numerous civilians who after all we were there to liberate, the Brits would have sent in a squad of soldiers to flush out the sniper. Granted, the guy in the tank was much safer than the soldiers in the building. The use of the tank was a choice.) Another tactic could be to destroy the tunnels from the Israeli side. After all, a tunnel has two openings. Instead of softening up the are around the entrance to the tunnel with air and artillery bombardment then sending in troops to destroy it, why not destroy the tunnel from the exit side. Israel CHOSE the tactic which results in the greatest number of civilian casualties. To be fair, Gaza also makes a choice on where to place the rockets. The issue is that there is little value placed on Palestinian lives and great value on Israeli. In this conflict the current ratio of total number of Palestinians killed to Israelis is about 30 to 1 and civilians about 500 to 1. When an Israeli soldier is captured in the course of battle it is deemed a “kidnapping” and there is much made of it in our press. However, The capture of hundreds of Palestinians is called an “arrest” and there is not much said about it. (It seems like the ratio needs to be on the order of thousands to one to be noteworthy.) A third way, though strategic and not tactical is to end the war. A blockade, by international law is considered an act of war. As long as Gaza is under siege, it is at war with Israel. One could argue that the rockets fired by Gaza are not a terrorist act as claimed by the Israelis and US media, but a military act of one combatant against another. If the blockade’s intention is to keep rockets out of the hands of the Palestinians, it obviously has not worked. Lifting the blockade would end an act of war and if the rockets continue, it then, though of questionable effectiveness, may be called an act of terror. Well, in any case, Mrs. Meyer and Mr. Shafer, Israel is not forced to kill children. It makes a conscious choice to do so.