On the Shortness of Life by Seneca

Philip Delves Broughton, a journalist turned MBA, wrote a book called “Ahead of the Curve.” In the book, he recounted his HBS experience with a very unique set of perspectives that I found compelling. In 2009, he wrote a book review in WSJ on the theme of management myths and bad impact that they can have in business. In that piece, Delves referred to Timothy Ferriss as an influential author of “The 4-Hour Work Week.” Ferriss, it turns out, “believes that most of what we need to know about work and life was written down centuries ago by Seneca” and that Seneca’s On the Shortness of Life was practically a required reading among the hip, technology crowd.” Well, that piqued my interest.
It turns out the book is not about efficiency at all (as I was led to believe by Delves’ association of “4-Hour Work Week”). Instead, Seneca writes of timelessness. In particular, his thesis is that people go about lives pursuing all manner of useless and perishable things. For example, if you scurry about making house visits and idling your hours at parties, what have you gained from it? Seneca’s concern there is that people live as if they are ‘destined to live forever … and not notice how much time has already passed by.’ As another illustration, Seneca writes of someone who spends one’s entire life toiling in order to gain a high public office of consulship that lasts but one year. What then?
Well, in Seneca’s mind, the best and wisest use of time is to expand one’s knowledge by spending time reading philosophy, to meditate in one’s mind with the likes of Plato. By doing that, one reaches into past and expands span of one’s life. It is preferable to idly passing time or toiling away ceaselessly.
As I was scurrying about from one Darden social event to another, and as I found myself feeling detached from the noise and din of the crowd at times, I could appreciate Seneca’s wisdom. Then again, I thought that it wasn’t all idle time, and that I was enjoying life with friends. Besides, my friend’s jokes are better than Plato’s.

On the Shortness of Life

Leadership and Self Deception: Getting Out of the Box

I am guessing that this book by the Arbinger Institute is the book that sparked the "think outside the box" jargon in the popular culture.

This book, too, took the narrative form similar to The Goal, though not in the more refined novel form. Instead, in short vignettes, the book talks about what it means to think inside and outside the box. Incidentally, thinking outside the box does not refer to thinking creatively, which is what I always thought it referred to.

Thinking inside the box refers to a selfish mode of thinking where we treat others as objects to serve us. In this mode, we become selfish and all actions and interactions are geared toward self-justification. The end result of this thought mode is that we become defensive of our own actions while at the same time become dismissive of others' efforts. Often, this state of things poisons our workplace relationships. The bottom line is that we can't achieve results together as an organization (similar to not being able to meet the Goal).

As I read the book, I was reminded of the times I was in the box in my interactions with others, both in and out of my work place. Moreover, I couldn't help but think that the thesis of the book is basically "don't be an asshole." In many ways, the book discovers nothing new. In the bible, Jesus talks about poisoning affects of hypocrisy, and he also demonstrates unfathomable sympathy and love for the suffering. I think one has only to read the gospels and get far more out about management and relationships than in reading about getting out of the box.

"The Goal" by Goldratt

I read The Goal by Eliyahu Goldratt. Of the Darden book list, this book was the sole required reading for the summer. It is an interesting book that takes a form of a novel. Its key precepts are not expounded, but rather unraveled using platonic dialogue between its protagonists Jonah and Alex Rogo.

Put simply, the book asserts that the goal of a company (implicitly for-profit one) is to make money. Isn't that a bit tautological? Anyway, the three measurements to achieve that goal are concepts called throughput, inventory, and operational expense. Throughout equates to sales, and you want to have more of them. Inventory and operational expenses are counterforces to sales, so you want to have less of them, but of course, you'll want enough of them to meet market demand so as to maximize throughput.

I found particularly interesting two things. One is a question about accounting concept. The other is a question about corporate life. First, based on the precepts asserted in the book, inventory is not desirable. It can be seen as a liability. Of course, in financial accounting is an asset. Where inventory declines, one debits expense and credits the inventory (asset). I find this very interesting. For example, Dell made its name by pioneering just in time inventory. Also, it's common knowledge that old inventory may become worthless. Both of these examples show that inventory is not generally desirable on the company's books. Hence, conceptually, much can be said to support the idea that it's a liability, rather than asset. (Same can be said about its place as an asset. It can be sold to generate throughput.)

The second challenging matter, that about corporate life, was the following. At the end of the book, Rogo asks himself what the role of a manager is. He asserts that a manager worth his salary should know the answers to the following:

1) What to change?
2) What to change to?
3) How to cause the change?

It's interesting to find the paramount place afforded to change. I suppose this is the reality. Those organization that fail to change, fail to live on.

Thinking outside the sphere

Before there was management-speak about thinking outside the box (long before), there was a time when greatest thinkers on the planet debated whether the world was geocentric or heliocentric. Keenest among these, Kepler inherited Martian orbit data from Tycho, thinking he'd soon unlock the secret to planetary motion. Instead, in Coming of Age in the Milky Way, Timothy Ferris relates how Kepler struggled to find an answer for eight years. Ferris also relates Kepler's reflections on his own mistakes (Ch. 6): "My first mistake was having assumed that the orbit on which planets move is a circle. This mistake showed itself to be all the more baneful in that it had been supported by the authority of all the philosophers, and especially as it was quite acceptable metaphysically." Kepler is talking about the fact that it was something of an accepted wisdom, an axiom almost, that man was at the center of the universe. No one really seriously challenged the notion for almost two thousand years since Aristotle.

Kepler apparently tested seventy circular orbits against Tycho's Mars data. Then, he imagined himself on Mars, and realized that earth's orbit would trace the same trajectory across the sky. There it was: earth revolves around the sun.

I don't think it's necessary to conclude anything based on this story. It's just a neat reminder that for the most part, we have no idea what we are talking about, and it takes an enormous effort and insight to rid ourselves of our ignorance.