Friday, June 3, 2011

Bye Bye B-school #1

Rather than attempt (and fail) to give a comprehensive post reflecting on my 2 year journey in business school as it comes to a close, I want to first direct you to some great writing done by my predecessors and fellow Kellogg alumni, on "What it's for," and "Was it worth it?"

As I grapple with my last set of finals (likely ever) this week and slowly knock out my remaining assignments, I would like to blog more, as recently I feel I have let several fleeting streams of thought escape me by failing to sit down and work through them.  The goal is to do a series of posts (titled Bye Bye B-school) so I don't feel so compelled to try to get it all out at once!


"There is no truth.  There is only perception."
                 - Gustave Flaubert, 17th century author of "Madame Bovary"

Life is only a series of perspectives.  Unsurprisingly, there are many perspectives to take on this very subject.  For example, one aspect is that there are two sides to each story.  Another is that the more you learn, the less you realize you know.  My favorite wording of this is from Harry Kraemer, who describes that as you improve in something, you feel like you're going from a 6, to a 7, to a 8... but around the time you get to 8 or maybe even 9, you suddenly realize that the scale wasn't out of 10, as you originally thought, but instead 20.  My personal learning has been around learning to let go the "one right answer" mentality I have held for the majority of my (Asian-learning-style inspired) life, and instead embrace the ambiguities, complexities, vagaries and downright messiness of real-world problems.  Kellogg's group culture has been a strong antidote for me; we all know it is important as leaders to consider each individual perspective, but how many of us can keep that in mind when the discussion heats up and we know someone else to be wrong?  When I believe I am right, I can feel my back arched and eyes flashing, and I will use angry rhetoric, extreme analogies, and an unrelenting cascade of arguments to prove my point.  I can't pretend that I'm now suddenly a collaboration-loving snugglebunny in groups, but I do feel much more self-aware in group situations and cognizant that I need to take off the blinders.  This applies not only to groups, but also within a company, realizing that there are different departments with different goals, or even within an industry, seeing how the different companies fit together because of different strategies.  On the opposite end of the scale, in personal situations, I am much more aware of conflict, looking beyond the surface issues to diagnose the origin.  Different perspectives can be traced to different values, experiences, or beliefs, and if conflict cannot be resolved outright than at least it can be understood and tolerated comfortably.  This applies even to conflict within myself; when I am confused, or frustrated, remembering to step outside of my present perspective and find a new one is the surest route to getting back on track.

"Were I to wait perfection, my book would never be finished."
                - Tai T'ung, 13th century author of "History of Chinese Writing"

There can be efficiency in "good enough."   We hear frequently in life about the 80/20 rule.  But following onto the previous point that there is no constant, when everything is only a matter of perspective, it makes sense not to commit yourself so far down one path that there can be nothing else.  Because life changes.  My perspective will change.  My friends can attest to my tendency to veer to extremes, and one consequence is I either dive into something with 100% zeal, or if something isn't working out right I drop it like a wet rag.  Just these last few days, spurred on by this article with great advice on what works in startups, I have begun seeing how this "good enough" principle can apply not just in today's fast moving tech world and software development, but my personal life and projects.  This is not to say that things shouldn't be done properly, and I know my personal perfectionist inclination (shared by many b-school types) will always be pushing me to get as good of a product as possible.  My goal is to stay motivated and committed on the war, knowing some battles will be lost along the way, and although I won't always get everything optimized, it will have to be "good enough."

This dovetails nicely into another lesson from Harry Kraemer:  The job of a leader is only two-fold:
  1. Prioritize
  2. Allocate resources
Inherent in this definition is that not everybody is going to win.  Some projects, some departments, will have to be "good enough."  Again, this may be common sense, but business school helped drive this point home.

Every man builds his world in his own image.  He has the power to choose, but no power to escape the necessity of choice.
                  - Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" 

Make choices explicitly.  So if we accept that life is a series of perspectives, and that a lot of the time we do not have the power to, nor should we try to, control everything, then what follows is that all we can control are the choices we make.  Many times when we feel we have our backs against the wall, it is easy to forget that there is always a choice.  Not seeing the choice and going ahead is failing to take into account the other perspective.   Knowing there's a chance you may fail, but having weighed the consequences and making the choice explicitly, there are no regrets.  I didn't mean to make this post all about Kraemer, but making explicit vs. implicit choices is something else that he drove home in his Managerial Leadership class.  It is easier to make a choice implicitly, because there is an excuse if things don't turn out as planned.  Making a choice explicitly can be scary, because it acknowledges that you have control, and there is a power and associated responsibility that comes with the control, where if things don't turn out as planned then it is your fault.  Part of the problem is being able to differentiate a poor decision from a poor outcome; often in life there will be good decisions that result in poor outcomes.  But only by making choices explicitly can we ensure that our actions are aligned with our values, that that what we're doing makes sense and is actually the right decision for us.  Making choices explicitly forces you to anticipate the ensuing result, to consider the multiple perspectives, so that we aren't surprised by an outcome.  So for example, it's one thing to tell yourself you're going to get around to mowing the lawn, and keep putting it off.  It's another to recognize that yes, someone else could say you should mow the lawn, but that you are prioritizing going out with friends, cleaning the house, and other hobbies over it.  Even if the outcome is the same (the lawn doesn't get mowed), by making the choice explicitly, rather than feeling guilt and anxiety over not mowing the lawn, you recognize that you have made the choice, and the consequence of the choice is an unmowed lawn.  And if you don't have more important things that take priority over the lawn, then why the hell haven't you mown it already?  No reason not to anymore, right?

Okay, that's it for now.  Up and at 'em in 4 hours for yet another final presentation, whee.

No comments:

Post a Comment