The brave martyrs of Uri

Eighteen brave men they were,
Young and younger in age,
Cut down by bullets and fire,
Felled by terrorists in a rage,
May their souls rest in peace,
May their sacrifice not be in vain,
The country shall not cease,
To remember their bravery and pain.

Human interaction by models - a theory

Let us start with a simple exercise. Let me name a person and you tell me what you associate that person with.

Albert Einstein, Don Bradman, Mozart, Mahatma Gandhi, Neil Armstrong and Arnold Swarzenegger. The names given here are only for illustration. We can think of any name.

Now let us see what we associated each person with.

• Albert Einstein - great scientist, greatest theoretical physicist, Theory of Relativity, Bose-Einstein condensate, photo-electric effect.
• Don Bradman - greatest batsman ever, greatest Australian cricketer, explosive batsman.
• Mozart - Great composer
• Mahatma Gandhi - Ahimsa or non-violence, Father of the nation (India), freedom fighter, great leader.
• Neil Armstrong - first man on the moon, astronaut
• Arnold Swarzenegger - Terminator, body builder, actor, governor.

Your associations probably match mine. There will, of course, be some differences based on our individual knowledge and understanding. The general idea is that we associate some principal characteristics or properties with a person. Note that all these personalities had many other facets not listed here. They were householders, fathers, brothers etc. Einstein was an accomplished violin player. Swarzenegger is a politician. But only a few characteristics dominate.

Let us study a different example - a resistor.

A resistor is characterised by a V-I (Voltage-Current) relationship. For a resistor this is written as  V = I × R. This means for an applied voltage V, the current I is such that V = I × R, where R is the value of the resistor and is a constant. Conversely, if a current I flows through a resistor of value R, the voltage developed across it would be V. This is the model of the resistor and is used extensively. This simple  model, however, does not take into account the effect of temperature. It assumes the temperature is constant. To factor in temperature effects, R = Ro[1 + £(T-To)], where Ro is the resistance at a given temperature To, say 20°C,  £ is the coefficient of temperature and T is the temperature. Therefore, V = I × Ro[1 + £(T - To)] is a more accurate model of the resistor which factors in the variation in resistance due to variations in temperature. If we require a model accurate to the second degree of the temperature, then V = I × Ro[1 + £1(T -To)+ £2 (T - To)^2)] is the desired equation, where £1 is the coefficient of the first order variation and £2 is the coefficient for the second order. Even this equation would not work for all values of voltages and frequencies. We would have to add terms to account for variation due to these variables.

Thus we see that an equation (model) becomes more and more accurate (and complex !) as terms are added.

Refer to the following links for an educative write-up on resistors.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/restmp.html

http://www.edn.com/design/components-and-packaging/4423492/Resistors-aren-t-resistors

We note that:

1. There exists a model for everything - person, thing or situation.
2. A model is a simplified version of the real person, situation or thing (which may be quite complicated).
3. A model describes an input-output relationship.
4. Using a model we can predict the output for a given input.
5. For a given input, the output is only as accurate as the model itself.
6. While we use a real resistor in circuit, all calculations are made based on the model.

The same principle applies to people and situations.

We unconsciously define models for situations and persons in our mind. It is these models that define our interactions with the person or situation and determine our actions and reactions





Fig. 1: Pictorial representation of interaction by models



 

Fig.1 depicts how an interaction between two people, A and B, takes place. A has a model of B in his mind and B has a model of A in his mind. Each also has a model of the situation in his mind. A’s actions and reactions are conditioned essentially by three factors – his own innate nature, his model of the situation and his model of B. Let us see each in more detail.

• A’s innate nature or characteristics: This determines A’s responses based on his self. A’s likes and dislikes, comfort level, preferences, sense of duty etc. form a part of this. This determines his innate response. For example, a person who is methodical will tend to be so in most, if not all, situations.  A person who is a go-getter will prefer action.
• Model of the situation: A situation can be defined as a collective of a number of people and events. This model comprises A’s understanding of the situation. This sets the context. Every interaction between two persons takes place in a specific situation and this situation influences the interaction. The model of this situation is, therefore, important and its accuracy has a bearing on the interaction. This model influences every interaction A has with anyone in that context. For example, if a person is in financial difficulty, all his interactions will be influenced by his difficulties. He may look for opportunities to overcome his difficulties in all his interactions. In the least, his situation would weigh on his mind all the time.
• Model of B: This has a direct and immediate  bearing on the interaction. This is A’s understanding of B. Every interaction with B, in every situation, is influenced by this model. This determines A’s personalised approach towards B. For any given situation, A’s responses would be different for different persons.

A’s actions and reactions are unconsciously modified by these three factors. The same is true for B. Note that while A’s responses are conditioned by the models of B and the situation, it is the real B who will respond to A and vice versa. The more accurate the models, the more accurate the responses. RA is A’s response as conditioned by these three  factors. It is only as accurate as the models. Similar is the argument for RB.

Note that the box showing A’s or B’s nature is not a model. It is the real person. It becomes a model for the other person as shown by the box “Model of A” or “Model of B”. The more accurately the Model of A matches the real A, the more accurate the responses.

This model of interaction evolves continuously as we interact more and more with that person, get a better understanding of the situation  and we ourselves evolve. Let us consider each factor in more detail.

• The more we interact with a person, the more information we gather about him. This gives us a more accurate model.
• The more observant we are of the situation, the more details we gather and the more accurate a model we can form.
• When our model is not accurate, our understanding of the person or situation is not very good and the interaction may not be very fruitful. It may also lead to misunderstandings. If the other person has a very accurate models of us and the situation, the interactions may still be fruitful as he may be able to compensate, to some extent, for our poor model.

The three factors have different weightages. The weightages vary from situation to situation and from person to person. Which factor influences more depends on the situation and the two persons A and B. These three factors are not compartmentalised as distinctly as shown in Fig. 1. They are more overlapped and integrated. Fig.1 is only for a better understanding of the factors.

Let us see some examples of models.

• For example, we would be wary of a short-tempered person and try to avoid him. He may not react the same way every time, but we would be cautious. This is because our model tells us to act like that.
• Let us see another example. Suppose a person is very careless by nature and tends to make mistakes. If we were to give him any work, we would give multiple instructions and would also check his work. It is not necessary that he should make a mistake every time he does something but our action and reaction would be conditioned by the model we have in our mind.
• Stereotyping is another example of a model. Here the model is a commonly accepted one.
• The principle can also be seen in operation when wild life experts get close to wild animals. They seem to get dangerously close to animals like lions without any protection. But the amazing fact is that the animals also do not feel threatened and ignore them. They understand the behaviour of the animals very well and know exactly what they should and should not do. They know the distance of closest approach beyond which the animal would react. They also understand the surroundings very well. Their model is very accurate.
• Let us consider a mobile phone. It has many features. Our model of the mobile phone consists of the features we know. We may not know of all the features. These would be listed and described in the manual. If we were asked to describe  all the features (our model of the mobile phone), our description would be incomplete. This is a simple example as the feature set of a mobile phone would be limited unlike that of a person which would be very vast.

When our model of the situation and person is accurate, our predictions and responses are accurate. When either of the two models is poor, our actions and responses may be incorrect and even prove counter-productive.

A model is dynamic in nature. It changes with time. Generally, we start with a low accuracy model. This becomes more accurate over time. This is maintained for a period of time. Then it loses accuracy over time. This happens because we may have reduced interactions with the person or situation. We may also have impaired faculties as we age.  Fig. 2 illustrates the change in accuracy of the model over time. This is only an example. The actual variation could be more complex.



 Fig. 2: Variation in model accuracy over time

Why do we need a model ? A real person or situation is very complex. We would find it very difficult to factor in all the parameters when dealing with him/it. So we unconsciously form models, which are simpler versions of the real person or situation, to deal with them. The accuracy, and consequently the complexity, of the model depends on various factors.

Disclaimer: This theory is purely a rabbit out of my hat and is based on my personal understanding only. I do not have any data or study to back it up.

College days

Those  are the days, I see through the haze,
Of the time gone by, With my vintage eye,
Lovely friends and friendship too,
Feelings of a myriad hue,
Days of arguments and fights,
Of all the tiny wrongs and rights,
Days of vast leisure and play,
Feeling full of hapiness and gay,
Of time spent in wonderous talk,
Around the campus on a serene walk,
Of the many tests and night-outs,
Followed by disappointed shouts,
The scratchy movies in the auditorium,
The audio punishing the ear drum,
Waiting for the posty to come,
What tidings does he brings from home ?
Of sickness and home-sickness too,
Only friends to take care of you,
The warden in his haughty march,
Causing a naughty throat to parch,
The cold winter and the hot days,
Withering dryness of desert ways,
Does you eye fill up with tears,
Longing for those wonderful years ?

The obnoxious practice of bell-curve fitting

Come appraisal time, there is one term that is on everyone's lips. A hated term that raises hackles. A term that conjures up the worst nightmares. It is the "bell-curve fitting". For no fault of its, the bell curve has come to be associated with a practice that employees of most corporates have come to despise.

From a statistical perspective, the bell curve is a frequency distribution curve. It shows the frequency of the measured variable for different values of the variable. It also known as the Gaussian or Normal distribution, the latter nomenclature being used in Statistics more frequently. The distribution is shaped like a bell and hence the name. A bell curve is fully defined by two parameters - the mean and standard deviation (SD). It is used widely in quality control. For any set of data, it is always possible to calculate the mean and SD. But that does not necessarily mean the data itself is normally distributed. The data must be tested for normality. There are various tests that can be used. The variable must be a continuous variable i.e., it must be able to take any value in a given interval. Typical variables are height, weight, age etc. This is about the bell curve.

Where would the bell curve apply ? If in a company there are 1000 Sales representatives and each representative has a sales target of Rs. 100,000, then the actual sales figures could reasonably be expected to lie in a bell curve. However, this needs to be confirmed with a test for normality. If confirmed, the data could be plotted as a bell curve. The performance of the Sales Reps could be gauged from the plot. The Average performers would be bunched around the mean. To the right would lie the Stars and to the left, the Laggards. The Average performers would be the largest in number. The other two categories would be less and, ideally, equal. One could have 5 categories instead of 3. The company could decide how to split the categories and the percentage of people that should be in each category could be arrived at from the graph.

The trouble starts when this innocuous curve is applied to the performance of employees. An employee typically has a number of key performance parameters or KPP. These could be revenue, profit/project margin, attrition, value addition etc. Each has its own unit of measurement. Revenue and value addition are measured in currency - Rupees, Dollars, Euro etc. Margin and attrition are measured in percentage. Each KPP target is given a weightage in percentage such that the sum of all weightages is 100%. An employee's performance is measured by scoring the employee for each KPP target on a scale of, say, 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest. A weighted average is determined and this is the overall score of the employee. The scores for all employees are similarly calculated and plotted. A bell curve is applied or rather, forced on the data. Stars, Average performers and Laggards are determined. All this seems very logical.

But let us look at the hidden facts.

1. What is plotted is the score of the employee. This is just a number and there is nothing normal about it.
2. The score is calculated from a number of numbers and their weightages. Nothing normal here.
3. No test is carried out to check for normality.
4. The score includes the bias of the appraiser. One appraiser may score an average of 9 for a group and another may score 7 for the same group. One is lenient and the other is more stringent.
5. The bands are split arbitrarily. There is no logic in saying a team of 100 has 20 Laggards. How is this determined ? This  percentage is applied across the company with no rhyme or reason.
6. There is a vague and opaque process called normalisation that is supposed to take care of the appraiser bias. How this works is a mystery.
7. Corporates have a delightful way of selling this and other such practices to employees. They employ a consulting firm that comes up with such wonderful ideas. These are "best practices across the industry","industry standard practices", "modern methods of evaluation" etc. If it does not work, they quietly dump it for another system. No apologies, no regrets. And if at all anyone is to be blamed, it is the consulting firm. Sweet, isn't it ? And don't be shocked if the company goes back to the same consulting firm for the next set of "industry bench-marked practices". 😠
8. And the best piece of cake ? Ask the HR what the bell curve is and chances are they will not know !😁😁😁

So what is done, in effect, is that the bell curve is forced on data that does not fit the bell curve. Its like wearing a shoe on the head - incongruous and painful. But there is something to cover the head, so why bother if it doesn't fit !👻👻👻
But the consequences could be bad for employees. Laggards would get less or no bonus payout. Average people would get paid but less than the Stars. Career growth would also be adversely affected.
But then who cares ?

Note :

1. The term Laggard is used only for purposes of illustration and nothing derogatory is implied.
2. The word "normal" used here is in the context of the Normal distribution.
3. The terms used could vary from company to company.
4. The method of bell curve fitting and scoring could also vary but the practice would be similar.

The corporate tree

A company is like a tree and employees are like monkeys. A few monkeys get together and plant a seed. A small plant comes to life. Then it grows into a tree. Soon monkeys from far and near get on to the tree and find a comfortable perch for themselves. The monkeys also try to climb up higher. As the tree grows bigger and taller, the monkeys also go higher just by virtue of being there. A few monkeys jump off and climb other trees. Over a period of time thue rate of growth of the tree slows down. The growth of the monkeys also tapers off. Now the monkeys have to look for places in higher branches. But by now the branches are crowded. The monkeys stagnate. Occassionally a monkey happens to jump off and this provides an opportunity for another to rise up but sometimes the remaining monkeys adjust themselves in such a way that they occupy all the space on the branch and no other monkey can move there.
The monkeys are only place-holders. You may replace them with donkeys, buffaloes, lions, foxes etc. Your imagination is the limit.
Now sit back, close your eyes, relax and think of the variety of wildlife in your organisation. It is a great stress reliever !
😃😃😃 

A mosquito in your bonnet

It is a lost war. Driving away a mosquito. Just one can drive you crazy
Many are a menace. Even when a mosquito is not infecting you, it is working hard to annoy you.
I have had my share of run-ins with them. As I sit back in my chair on a lazy Sunday evening to message my friends, the mosquito sets her sights on me. I suppose I am a big juicy target. Five minutes is all I get before the attack begins. A bite on the legs. I move them. One on the elbow. I shake my arm. A bite on my neck. I drive it away with my hand. Soon I am shaking different parts of my body to her biting rythm. It is a dance, no less. This happens semi-consciously if you are a veteran. Suddenly my hand slaps my neck. One is dead. She had inserted her prombosis too far into me and was unable to escape. I wipe my hand in satisfaction. But the victory is shortlived. Another one takes her place. The whole exercise repeats. Sometimes she will buzz near my ears, driving me crazy.  So I am doing two jobs at one time. One is whatever I am doing. The other is keeping the bites to the minimum. I have found that mosquito repellent creams, mats etc. are no good, notwithstanding all the wonderful advertisements. But other people tell me they are quite effective. Perhaps the mosquitoes in my area are a toughened variety. The only effective defence, I have found, is the electric bat. This bat, a cross between a tennis and a badminton racquet, literally shocks the mosquito to death. The light and sound are a bonus, perhaps even satisfying.

Often I have taken a mosquito as a passenger in my car. It gets in uninvited when I open the door to get in. The number depends on how long the door was open. If I happen to leave a window open overnight, the entire colony would be inside the next morning. Driving under these conditions can be challenging. I get bitten all over. I can use only one hand in defence. The legs cannot be shaken, much less moved. Of course I have to concentrate on the road. Opening all the windows drives out all the mosquitoes but a few. Now the fun starts. The mosquito goes around buzzing. It reaches the open window and changes direction. Back it comes inside. How it senses the boundary between the car and the outside amazes me. But everytime it unerringly turns back. I am sure border issues would be resolved if  mosquitoes were to police the borders. I decide the mosquito needs some help. So I try and push it out with my hand or try to blow it out. I try this when I am waiting at a signal. Other drivers give me a strange look. I guess they think I am crazy to be waving my hands and blowing at nothing. I also run the risk of women taking umbrage at my actions. Victory at last. The mosquito flies away. I immediately raise my windows. But before the glass is fully raised, the chap comes in again. He has no intention of leaving my car. After many more tries (at signals only as it would be dangerous to do all this while driving), I finally manage to drive him out.
Then I reflect. I had picked him up at home and dropped him off a few kilometres away. Will he find his way back ? Will he find new friends or a new family ? Will he remain alone for the rest of his life ? Will he survive ? My concern for him grows as the distance from him increases. If only there were some means of communicating with the mosquito, I would learn so much from him.