Saturday, December 15, 2012

Concern

There are very few people
Whose love I value and nurture
And there are many
I really don't care about
They criticize me for what I didn't do
Or prize me for what I do not deserve
But there are some,
Though not too many,
With regard to whom
I will be very concerned
If one day,
Heaven Forbids,
They will stop hating me.

The Norm

Confusion, ambiguity
Uncertainty, fear,
Lack of clarity, borders,
Or any sense of stability,
Frustration, and anger,
Misunderstandings, and conflicts,
More anger, more fear
Theft, and betrayal,
Gossip and blame - 
All these are normal,
Inseparable parts of the daily life fabric.

Consensus, agreement,
Cooperation, or, Heaven forbids,
Some clarity, certainty,
Or minimal sense of security,
Happiness or bit of serenity,
They all are exceptions,
Most likely illusions.

Stop wetting your pants from the fear
Or drinking yourself to the death
All this shit around is real
And all your dreams are merely dreams.

But only those who were
Stupid enough to stick with their dream
And to make, to finally make that fucking last mile
Only these naive idiots did manage
To turn something worthy
Out of their lives.

Nobody will last forever
Go and die with honor.

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Ruth

This is an extended English version of a lecture I gave in my synagogue during the Shavuot holiday night. Some people said is was fresh and unconventional.

******

Tonight I decided to talk about the book "Ruth", which we are going to read in two hours (my talk was around 3:00 A.M.). This book plays a very special role in our tradition. A literature masterpiece by itself it paves a bridge between Torah (Humash) and the Book of Samuel in describing the genesis of Israeli Royal Family (Beit David). It also constitutes a turning point in what role female and male heroes play in building the Jewish nation in general and the Royal family in particular.

Zeev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky was not only a prominent Zionist leader. He was also a brilliant Russian writer and journalist. Jabotinsky once prepared a short speech for a feminist dinner. From the book I have I could not figure out where and when this speech was prepared and delivered, in which language, and to whom exactly. By some indirect indicators I could suppose it happened sometime in 20-ties of the previous century and delivered at a 8th of the March dinner of Zionist female activists. But this is just a speculation.

What struck me in his short speech, is that Jabotinsky part seriously, part kidding, made a statement that during the human history female rulers had statistically much better record than their male piers. He started with Salomeya Alexandra, who as Jabotinsky referencing to Josef Flavius "Jewish Wars" claimed, brought the only 10 years of quite and prosperity during the whole period of the Hasmonei family ruling in Judea. Whenever male representatives of the Hasmonei family came up to the power it was always accompanied by bloodshed, corruption, theft, curt intrigues, and lechery. I checked with the Flavious's "Jewish Wars". Not that rosy. but indeed Flavius claims that 9 years, when Alexandra was ruling, were the only period of relative quite and prosperity.

If we look at the early stories in Torah related to building of Jewish nation and the Royal family, females have always played a dominant and active role. Sometimes their decisions and actions are very controversial, at least according to our contemporary morale, but at the bottom line all their decisions this way or another lead to building of the Jewish nation and its Royal Family. Their male partners on the other hand were quite passive concentrating more on dialogs with G-d and spirituality.

We could start this survey with the "First Sin". In this story it was Eva who took the forbidden fruit while Adam passively followed her and once being caught immediately pushed all responsibility onto his wife. Very noble behavior, indeed! But in this case one might argue that Serpent was the real culprit. He devised the whole plot, he seduced Eva. She was a victim. Therefore we should probably discount this episode.

The next story is about Sarah, Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham is maintaining a very active dialog with the G-d and is told that his descendants will fill the Promised Land. There is only one practical issue at the moment. He and his wife Sarah do not have children. Sarah does see that Abraham is not young anymore and still does not have a heir. So she decides to bring her servant, Hagar, to Abraham and through this to ensure that Abraham will have at least one. Abraham plays a completely passive role, he just perfroms whatever Sarah tells him. Later on when Sarah has her own son, Yitzhak, she is very concerned about Ishmael, Hagar's son, and directs Abraham to expel them to the desert. Abraham is very sorrow about this decision, but the G-d tells him to obey to the Sarah's decision. Following a straightforward human logic both Hagar and Ishmael were supposed to die in the desert. And they would die if there were not saved by the Angel.

The next story is about Lot and his two daughters. After destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah the Lot's daughters are fully convinced that they two and their father are the only people who remained on the earth. The elder daughter managed to convince her younger sister that the only way to prevent the human kind from extinction is to seduce their farther to make children with them. From the text we could assume that this incestuous act was forbidden even at that time, not talking about our modern times. It was probably forbidden for Sodomites however absurd this might not sound. To accomplish their plan the girls lead their farther to be drunk. Lot, again, plays a fully passive role. From the text it's unclear whether he was aware about what's going on. Rashi, however, makes it clear that on the morning Lot did realize but did not refrain from drinking at the second night. It's important to notice that the text puts more condemnation on the elder sister. She is who took the initiative and persuaded her sisters. For that reason her son has got the name Moav ("from my father") as if she was enforced to admit her crime in public. Still we should not forget that Ruth, the grandmother of King David, was from Moav. May be, and it is my speculation, this ability to make tough, controversial decisions, to execute and to assume the full responsibility is a crucial ingredient for building a King.

The next story, we will briefly stop at, is about Rebeka, who directs Jacob to masquerade himself as Esav and to steal his farther's blessing. Jacob does execute what his mother tells him, but he was scary and did not move until his mother says: "On me the curse, my son, on me". Is it another manifestation of a true leader character our Mother is trying to teach us?

The next story is about Jacob himself, and his wifes Rachel and Leah. Jacob almost does not interfere with the family building business. He loves Rachel, but when Leah comes first he reconciles quite quickly and just patiently works another seven years for Rachel. It looks like he leaves all important decisions about the family structure to the sisters. When Rachel complains that she does not have a child he blows up: "What do you want from me? Whether I'm instead of the G-d?"

Now we will turn our attention to Tamar. Tamar, as Ruth a couple of generations later, stubbornly wants to get a child from the Judah family. As if she knows that this is going to be the family of Kings. When two Judah's sons die and she realizes that Judah is not going to give her his third son, Shelah, she sets a 'trap' for Judah himself. Till the last moment Judah is absolutely blind to what's going on. Only when Tamar points him directly to his belongings does Judah creptitate "She is right, not me". May be for that reason the story of Tamar and Judah is briefly mentioned in the "Ruth" book.

So far we could conclude that in all these stories women somehow possessed an ability to grasp a situation and to make the most right decision however weird and controversial it did not look like. Men on the other hand were quite oblivious to the family and nation building, and did not disturb at the best.

Jabotinsky in his memories about the Jewish Legion mentioned that: “Strategy is an ability to spot immediately, in the space of a very wide front, the weakest point of enemy. To do this a very special trait, which British call 'imagination', is required …” In all stories surveyed above the strategic imagination seems to be belonging to our Mothers. Is it a wisdom of the heart?

With the story of Ruth it all suddenly changes. It's true that Ruth exhibits the same level of determination and strategic vision as Tamar or even her grand-grand mother - the elder daughter of Lot. Ruth is faithful to Naomi and is willing to go with her till the end. The main difference is the behavior of Boaz. From the very beginning there is no any reason to suspect that Boaz does not understand what's going on. The opposite is true - he is a real partner to Ruth, clearly understands what needs to be done and immediately assumes the full responsibility. At the final stage of the Royal family building male and female parts are playing in a full harmony.

This is a very rare situation. In "The Book of Samuel" and "The Book of Kings" (Sefer Malachim) the male role starts to be clearly dominant and active while the female role is more passive. Even when Bat Sheva decides to approach the aged King David in order to protect herself and her son Shlomo she does it only after Nathan, the prophet, tells her to do so.

Even in a more extreme form this is presented in the story of Purim. The book is titled "The Book of Ester", however Ester, the Queen, plays a pretty passive role. The whole drama from beginning till the end is lead by Mordehai. This is his fight with Haman, this is his way to shake Jewish people out of apathy. Ester is a hero, no doubt, but she follows the Mordehai will.

So what could we tell about these stories? Is it by an accident? Just a fruit of late night imagination? May be. I can suggest at least one plausible explanation. As with growing kids the Jewish nation and the Royal family needed care and protection of a Mom as long as they were young and vulnerable. Perhaps at this stage women have stronger intuition and instincts to protect an infant even at the price of committing a crime. Once the kid as grown (s)he needs another type of leadership and guidance and here the men start to playing a more dominant role.

Still the book of Ruth is a unique example when male and female partners are playing in a unison, in a true harmony. Somehow this unique quality has been lost. May be one day we will find a way to recover it.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

The Wish

I will run until they shut me
I will fly until they put me down
I will swim until they sink me
I will sing until they cut my throat
I will touch until they tear off my skin
I will smell until they cut off my nose
I will taste untill they pull out my toungle
I will love, until ... you know
I will play a big and risky game but will not pick up a spoon from the floor
When my best intents are ridiculed and misinterpreted on the wrong side
And my sweet dreams are trashed in mockery
When the whole world does pass by my pain without even being noticed
Oh Lord, I have only one wish
Give me enough air on my lungs
To spit into their fat, ugly, self-enjoing faces:
"Fuck you, silly deck of cards"
"Fuck you, insane and cruel world. I will go my way"

Monday, February 8, 2010

Making a Choice

Out of so many choices which one to make?
Out of so many options which one to pursue?
Out of so many books which one to read?
Out of so many gurus which one to listen to?
Out of so many gods which one to worship?
Out of so many melodies which one to enjoy?
Out of so many pretty girls which one to kiss?
Out of some many wines which one to drink?
Out of so many fruits which one to taste?
Out so many dances which one to dance?
Out of so many seducing sins which one to commit?
Out of so many roads to hell which one to walk along?
Out of so many fights which one to fight?
Out of so many friends which one to betray?
Out of so many wives to whom to be faithful?
Out of so many principles for which one to die?
Out of so many enemies which one to kill?
Out of so many parties to which one to enroll?
---------
Bewildered, perplexed, frustrated I sink in despair.
Do not want to fight, do not want to love, do not want paradise nor hell ...
Too much exhausted am I and confused
To make even a single choice ...
---------
Arise, Arjuna!
You won't escape, it's your path to walk along.
Fight, if you can, or fly away, if you can't,
Be courageous yet generous.
Beyond all these faces see My Face.
Beyond all these voices hear My Voice.
Beyond all these troubles see My Justice.
Beyond all these melodies listen to My Song, My Song of Life.
Beyond all these pretty girls see My Beauty.
And while drinking all these wines seek taste of My Grape.
Run away from parties, from casts and from guilds.
Be strong and courageous,
Do not believe, don't be scary, and do not plead.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Knowledge Acquision Plan

Extracted from my 2005 trip report, but still relevant, I think.

Knowledge acquisition policy is one of the most basic business strategy building blocks of every high-tech company. In fact a “knowledge acquisition plan” specifying which knowledge is produced internally, and which is purchased from outside and in which form, should come before any other “acquisition plan” including furniture, computers, training courses, and hiring. Only by having a clear understanding of which knowledge constitutes the company’s core competence and which mission-critical supporting functions must be performed in-house, a conscious decision about how many employees of which skills are required could be made.

Every high-tech company spends substantial amounts of money on books, training courses, conferences, mentoring and consulting services, hiring subcontractors, and outsourcing certain projects. Even though our Knowledge and Learning Centers, IT and Finance departments provide a wonderful logistics support for these activities, having a clear long-term knowledge acquisition plan is still a would to be achieved goal. Hopefully this paper will contribute to making this goal closer.

What’s the Difference?

In order to have a cost-effective knowledge acquisition strategy one needs a clear understanding in what way are consultants different from subcontractors, trainers and mentors, and what could be an added value of each form of service.

Consultants are usually experts in some specific technical area: testing, project/product management, software engineering. Even though good consultants could (and usually should) be good trainers and mentors in their area of technical expertise, their main added value comes from a different source: general systems analysis and problem solving. In order to better understand what’s the difference let’s briefly consider each type of service.

Subcontractor

A subcontractor is a person or a company, who does possess particular skills and/or knowledge about a subject, which are not mission critical for the company business, and do not belong to its core competence. However developing products using these skills and knowledge cannot be outsourced due to some logistics, intellectual property rights or contractual limitations. For instance, developing an auxiliary special-purpose tool could be sometimes effectively subcontracted.

Subcontracting is an effective cost management tool since it allows benefit from a certain set of professional skills without establishing long-term employer-employee relationships.

To sum up, subcontractors bring particular knowledge and skills and by themselves apply this knowledge and skills to particular company’s projects.

Trainer

A (external) trainer is a person or company, who provides a (semi-) formal education in from of frontal lectures and generic exercises on a subject, which is mission-critical, but does not belong to the company’s core competence. For instance, software engineering practices might not belong to your company core competence, but still be mission-critical for your business success and thus demands a well-defined external training program.

To sum up, external trainers bring to the company particular knowledge and skills in general without applying them to any specific project.

On the other hand internal trainers and mentors usually help newcomers to acquire knowledge and skills, which do belong to the company core competence or established practices.

Mentor

A mentor would be the same (or another) person or a company, who provides training follow-up services for the employees day-to-day activities. For example, an instructor, who helps software engineers to apply the Test-Driven Development approach to developing their programs, would play a role of a mentor.

To sum up mentors help the company to apply particular knowledge and skills to the company’ projects, but (ideally) do not implement these projects by themselves.

Consultant

Although a good consultant is sometimes engaged in training and/or mentoring activities (or whatever is required to make a meaningful progress), that would not be his/her primarily contribution. A good consultant seldom solves problems, but rather helps the company to solve its problems by assessing the current situation and evaluating available choices.

When utilized wisely a good consulting service helps the company management to better understand which problems need to be solved, which would be better to ignore, and which external help in a form of outsourcing, subcontracting, tools, training, mentoring, or whatever else, is required in order to solve these problems.

In particular, world-class consultants are savvy general system analysts capable of finding problem root causes and conscious evaluation of realistic solution choices available at the company’s disposal.

Human factor plays a major role in all but the most basic technical problems, and a good consultant needs to be experienced and skillful enough to handle even the most bizarre situations caused by broken interpersonal communication, incongruent behavior, self-imposed constraints, automatic “survival” rules, poor emotional intelligence, incoherent reward/punishment schema, or sometimes just outdated and ineffective company structure. When the root cause analysis task is taken seriously, dealing with these “dark” sides of the company life is almost always inevitable.

With this regard external consultants have a certain advantage over internal ones. First, as Jerry Weinberg says “the fish is the last who sees the water” and the most challenging part of each problem is to acknowledge the problem. External consultants are by definition independent, (supposed to be) not scared of or emotionally engaged in anything and thus could see the situation as it is rather than how the company employees and/or management want it to be. Also, an experienced consultant has already seen more than one company, and since very few problems are really unique, could supply a basis for reference and information about which choices are available.

On the other hand, internal consultants are more familiar with the company business, so sometimes a combination of the both types could work the best.

We all are consultants

The modern high-tech business is turning out to be a more and more challenging business, with the ever increasing weight of human factor, where having a good consulting tool kit starts to be a matter of survival. In a sense we all are playing a role of consultant under different circumstances. To be a successful vendor we have to provide good consulting services to our customers. To be successful managers we have to be able to be good consultants to people how are reporting to us. To be successful technical leaders we have to be good trainers, mentors and consultants to our teammates. Even in order to be a good subordinate one needs to be a good consultant to his/her manager.

The Best Advice I Can Give You

Having said all that the best advice I can give, as an experienced consultant, is "never take consultants too seriously". This is a kind of vaccination you have to make before you start working with consultants. All consultants are humans and could have their own blind spots. But this is not the main reason. The main reason is that sometimes companies take consultants too seriously and involve them too deeply in strategic decision making. This is dangerous because consultants normally do not have to loose as much as the real stakeholders have. The latter makes the whole world of difference. Decisions should be made only by those, who have a real stake in the matter. Good consultant should know where and when to step aside and not to push too hard. Making decisions in principle is not the same as making decisions in real and we all have to be aware about this.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Why Twitter, again?

Why should everybody know what I'm doing?

First of all, who cares? Very few people, if any.

Second, today perhaps nobody knows why. There a couple of blogs (and here), which are trying to connect Twitter to Abraham Maslow's Theory of Human Motivation. The authors speculate which kind of human needs does Twitter satisfy and how. I think people largely misinterpret Maslow's theory and take his motivation theory out of context. Only those, who have never read Maslow's books could claim that "According to Maslow, everything we do is derived from and revolves around a certain need we are seeking to satisfy". According to Maslow people, who do everything for a reason, to satisfy certain need, are mentally sick. Healthy people do a lot of things without any motivation, spontaneously, because they are so. Also, according to Maslow people often behave this way or another because some of their basic needs are thwarted. It does not mean they are aware which need is deprived and are consciously trying to address it. It not too very often happens, and only with those who have relatively strong mental health.

Obviously different people Twit for different reason. Just this mechanistic calculation: this type of Twit for this need, this type of Twit for that need, looks stupid. Definitely not what Maslow was trying to say.

Why does bird fly? Because it's a bird. Why do we do a lot of things spontaneously, thoughtlessly? To satisfy our higher needs? Not always. To satisfy my higher needs I will read a book, but will not hum a song. I will hum because I'm humming now (thanks, Winny). Even not for fun. Just without any reason.

Perhaps this is the power of Twitter that it allows people to get of out controlled and motivated (Maslow would call "coping") behaviour, to throw something silly in the air without caring too much who will pick up it, just for fun. Over-controlled behavior is too boring and in fact dangerous.

Personally I follow a relative small number of Twits from people I have an interest in. I do not care too much what they write, but do get a better idea about what kind of people they are.

I started my Twit because I wanted to learn something about social networks, but after a while I realised that I like it. While I'm on travel it gives me a way to take off some burden (Oh Lord, stop feeding me tuna!). But basically I think it's completely unmotivated. Just a nice gardget to toy with. I may stop it one day, or to continue building my digital astral body till the death. Who knows.

Obviously, some people and organizations are using Twitter for a carefully crafted brain washing and self-promotion. Such danger does exist, indeed. And Twitter still needs to find a way to make money out of their technology. I think when it starts to be over-commericialized the digital flock will fly to elsewhere. All in all any fashion is not for ever.

Another comment. I found Twitter somehow similar to haiku - very short Japanese verses, popular in Zen Buddhism. I have very little what to do with Buddhism, but I like this short concise form, which helps you freeze the moment in sometimes completely irrational sequence of words. May be a kind of new era for proustian or joician flow of conscious? Hard to know, it's unconscious.

Now the only question remains. If I'm so spontaneous and free of any self-promotion calculations, why do I put these sexy icons of my Twitter, Twitterpc and Blogger as a digital signature of my e-mail. Isn't it a hypocrisy? Marketing without marketing as they call it. I hope the answer is no, even though in this kind of things it's hard to be 100% sure. As part of my work I often come across some interesting materials (blogs, presentations). I also periodically write by myself. It's a way to improve professional knowledge. I used to push this stuff via e-mail to some of colleagues, but I have never done it systematically. I also found this push style too intrusive. What if somebody does not want to get them, or do not want others to know that they do get it? For that reason I decided to put the links at the end of my e-mail. Who wants will read, who doesn't - will not. Free choice, so to speak. I was also interested to know where do these nice icons come from. Apparently each Web site has a special file called favicon.ico. Technically it's a bit cumbersome - needs to be converted to png, but looks nice. We are engaged in the electronic media business. Some familiarity with what's up will not hurt.