I was reading some of the interviews in the "corner office" section of NYT - specially today's interview with the CEO of Cognizant. It got me wondering about why "being in one's comfort zone" is seen as a negative. But on the other hand rituals and "company culture" is seen as helpful.
Looks like "being in one's comfort zone" automatically implies that one will not risk to venture out of this zone. The rituals and culture in this case would be so as to encourage risk-taking. Making people feel that its ok to risk and lose, as long as you come back up stronger and having learnt something useful.
This kind of culture seems to value individuals who are restless for the next success. Putting this in terms of basic Hindu Philosophy of the "trigunas" - this culture is tuned to heighten the Rajas in individuals. The hunter-gatherer society worked out because the gatherers provided sustenance in times when the hunters were not successful in their high risk gambits - and glory was all the hunters. If everyone were to pursue glory the whole society would collapse.
But we don't seem to have any doubt that as a society we will reward the highest risk takers. One possible reason is that, low risk behavior is what comes naturally and there is a need for strong incentive for high risk behavior. So by constructing such culture we are trying to support rarer human instincts.
No comments:
Post a Comment