Stop bothering, mate!

Seeking advancement is in the nature of man. We try to outdo people around us all the time, since that is the natural way we progress as individuals, as society; though the latter may not really be a part of our calculations. Whom do we choose to outdo then? Obviously the ones who are doing better than us, for the others we must already have outdone to reach the position which we have.

Now, let us assume that a hierarchy exists among people, which is not too much of an assumption really, simply because at any point of time, one person has to be doing better among any two people. For our purpose, we will take the level of competency a person possesses as a determinant to who is doing better, since competency is a fairly comprehensive parameter in itself.

Like any other person, you would be a part of some hierarchy or the other and therefore, you must occupy some position in it. Let us say that you are at the 6th position, i.e., you are the 6th most competent person. The immediate objective for you then would be to outdo the person who is at the 5th position in the hierarchy, since that is the only plausible way to move up - by displacing the person adjacent to you first and then the others further up in the hierarchy. To outdo this person, say M, you need to exceed the level of competency that he currently possesses. To do that, you have to try and match your competence to that of M’s current level first. M, however, has a similar motivation to elevate his level of competency and bring himself to displace the person in the 4th position, say N. So, he too works towards improving his competence to N’s current level at least. Apparently, the only way you can now outdo M is by increasing your competency level at a rate faster than him. Possible, surely?

Imagine that competency was a straight line starting from zero and ending at infinity. Your competency level is currently at, say, some point X, and M’s is at, say, some point Y. Here, Y is ahead of X. In your efforts to improve your competence, you move from point X to point Y. But in the mean time, M’s efforts have taken his competency level to some point Z from Y, where Z is ahead of Y. You still lag behind M. You try again and take yourself to point Z. However, during this time, M has again moved to a new point W, where W is ahead of Z. Extending this argument, it becomes clear that your position on the linear straight line will always be behind M’s. The same logic goes for M. M will continue to be behind N. And if that’s the case, the hierarchy will always be maintained.

In effect, however hard you try, you are always going to stay at the same position in the hierarchy, just where you had originally been. And if relative position is all that matters, then why even bother trying? Just chill and stay afloat.

Now, find me that silly person who wrote the 4th standard Moral Science lesson – “Try, try, again”.

(This article has been inspired from the Zeno’s Paradox.)

Yes, but intuitively

One of the dominant myths surrounding an MBA degree relates to the rigidity of the learning that is disseminated. A large section of people believe that MBA is a course where too much theory is ingrained into topics that are largely intuitional. In effect, the belief translates into saying that MBA makes robots of highly innovative people, by establishing closed stereotypes and binding their intellect into preconceived notions. This can’t be further from the truth.

Any person with a reasonable knowledge of what goes on inside an MBA classroom will vouch for the fact that it employs, arguably, the most innovative teaching pedagogy. The case study method developed by the Harvard Business School, the Vatican City of management education, has come to be widely accepted in management institutions all over the world, largely due to its effectiveness in enabling the target audience to understand new concepts by applying them to real market scenarios. But if we look beneath the surface, it’s easy to see that the participative mechanism which the method uses is as crucial to its success. Every opinion undergoes a process of evolution and modification, as a case discussion moves forward. By invoking the participants to jointly analyze a given situation and recommend solutions, an effort is made towards making sure that the concepts, rather than being thrust upon them, come to be appreciated as worthy of application in real life.

A skeptic might still say that though the concepts are evolved, they still tend to limit the field of view of the participant when it comes to analyzing a given situation; aren’t we killing intuition by emphasizing on the application of these concepts? It is relevant to note here that the concepts taught in any MBA course are merely tools to facilitate reaching a conclusion. Let’s take a situation in marketing as an example. A marketing opportunity may be perceived differently by two individuals, who can then make use of marketing tools and concepts and still reach two different marketing strategies. It is possible that both the strategies work. Also possible is that none of them give the desired results. It is here that intuition comes into play and demands creativity from the individuals in their approach. There are several such situations which demand subjectivity. More often than not, it is the combination of rationale and intuition that proves to be the best answer.

An MBA course aims to provide students a holistic view of the business world. Ingraining stereotypes among students would be as detrimental to the students as to the discipline itself. The general environment that an MBA course provides also facilitates exchange of ideas and learning. MBAs have time and again showcased their penchant for innovation and their ability to break out of the clutter. This has only been possible due to the high value that MBA places on openness to experience and readiness to change.

(If you are pro-MBA, then be happy! If you aren’t, then read this as a sarcastic take on MBA. As for me, I am still undecided. Bah!)