I am wrong…

by

It’s not easy to accept something unacceptable.

It’s not giving up, its just your way of working, the one way of working doesn’t work.

And it falls under “I am wrong.” Maybe you should have done due diligence, maybe you should have worked harder. There are a lot of “may be’s.”

Why can’t it be simply “I am wrong” and move on?

Why “I am right” is stronger, may be because the stakes are higher, may be because people are around.

Yet, as humans, we’ve come this far because of many “I am wrong”s and far fewer “I am right”s. So, let’s keep making mistakes and keep accepting them.

Art gives us life…

by

Without art, life is reduced to mere survival—driven by material cravings and fear. Art gives meaning, transcending our basic needs by allowing us to express emotions, confront uncertainties, and connect with others. It enriches our humanity, turning existence into something deeper, more fulfilling, and ultimately beautiful.

A “Yes” Organization: The Power of Opportunity and Innovation

by

In every organization, there’s an underlying default response to new ideas, initiatives, and opportunities. The default can be a “Yes” or a “No.” Understanding which culture dominates your organization can show how innovation, risk-taking, and progress are managed.

What is the Default in Your Organization?

  • Is it “Yes”? In a “Yes” organization, new ideas and opportunities are welcomed with an open mind. The default stance is to say “Yes” to possibilities unless there is a compelling reason to say “No.” This culture fosters a sense of innovation, exploration, and empowerment. People feel confident in bringing ideas to the table, and there’s a drive to experiment and push boundaries. However, this can sometimes feel chaotic without the right checks and balances. Too many initiatives running in parallel, or pursuing risky ventures without proper evaluation, can lead to inefficiencies. With proper governance, the “Yes” organization can become a powerhouse of creativity and adaptability.
  • Is it “No”? On the other hand, in a “No” organization, the instinct is to say “No” unless a strong case is made for saying “Yes.” The status quo rules and change happens only when someone builds a compelling argument for it. This approach can provide stability and control, avoiding unnecessary risk. It ensures that only the most robust ideas, supported by strong logic, get through. Yet, in a “No” culture, innovation can be stifled. When everyone has veto power, and when change feels risky or inconvenient, many potentially transformative ideas get shot down before they can gain traction. The result is often a slow-moving organization that misses out on opportunities.

The Risks and Rewards of Each Approach

  • In “Yes” Organizations:
    • Pros: You create an environment of agility, openness to change, and experimentation. Employees feel empowered to propose ideas without the fear of immediate rejection. This can drive innovation, adaptability, and responsiveness to market changes.
    • Cons: If not managed well, it can result in disorganization. Too many initiatives might be pursued at once, leading to resource strain, loss of focus, or projects with weak foundations.
  • In “No” Organizations:
    • Pros: Stability and risk management are prioritized. Only the strongest ideas make it through, backed by well-reasoned arguments. This can ensure resources are well-utilized, and only the most impactful changes are pursued.
    • Cons: Innovation might suffer as the fear of rejection discourages risk-taking and new ideas. The bias toward maintaining the status quo can lead to missed opportunities and a culture where people play it safe rather than pushing boundaries.

Finding Balance: Is There a Mix in Your Organization?

Many successful organizations find themselves somewhere in between—a hybrid where the default might vary based on context.

  • Controlled “Yes” Culture: These organizations foster a culture of “Yes” but have systems in place to evaluate ideas critically. They say “Yes” to exploration but require ideas to pass through phases of validation before they get full backing.
  • Selective “No” Culture: Some organizations lean towards “No” but encourage certain teams or departments (like R&D or Innovation) to operate with more flexibility, allowing for faster experimentation and idea generation.

Aspiring to Change for Sustainability

There is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to being a “Yes” or “No” organization. The key is understanding what’s working for you, assessing whether the current balance drives the outcomes you want, and adapting for the future.

  • If you’re a “Yes” organization: Consider instituting more structured decision-making processes, so that ideas are encouraged but only the best ones move forward.
  • If you’re a “No” organization: Look for ways to create safe spaces for experimentation, where smaller risks can be taken without compromising the overall stability of the business.

In either case, the ultimate goal is to ensure that the default mindset aligns with your organization’s long-term goals, enabling sustainability and growth.

In which direction does your organization lean? If the current approach isn’t yielding the desired results, now might be the time to rethink your default stance.

Why is good, but Why is bad…

by

We often hear how important it is to understand the “why” behind our actions. These pre-why moments—asking why before starting something—are valuable. They provide clarity, helping us align our actions with purpose and allowing us to weigh the pros and cons upfront.

However, there’s also the post-why—the questioning that happens after things go wrong. When we dwell on why something failed, it can lead to over-analysis, trapping us in a loop of regret and doubt. This form of “why” can lead to analysis paralysis and hinder growth.

So, be mindful of which “why” you engage with the one that drives you forward or the one that holds you back.

Strategy vs Tactical

by

Strategy and tactics are two essential elements in achieving success. Strategy focuses on the long-term vision and overarching goals, guiding organizations toward their desired outcomes. It sets the direction and helps prioritize efforts. On the other hand, tactics are the short-term actions and decisions made to implement the strategy. They address immediate challenges, adapting to changing circumstances while staying aligned with the broader goals.

In essence, strategy provides the “what” and “why,” while tactics define the “how” and “when.” The right balance of both ensures an organization can stay focused on its vision while executing effectively day-to-day.

Life in Bets: Navigating One-Way and Two-Way Door Decisions

by

In life and business, every decision we make can be viewed as a calculated bet. Some bets are high-stakes, while others allow for flexibility, but each one carries its own risks and rewards. To make these decisions effectively, we can categorize them as Main Bets, Options to Play, and Can’t Lose strategies. In addition, pairing this strategic mindset with the concept of one-way and two-way door decisions can help you understand which decisions are reversible and which ones aren’t, allowing for better planning and risk management.

One-Way vs. Two-Way Door Decisions: The Basics

  • One-Way Door Decisions: These are high-stakes, irreversible decisions. Once you go through the door, there’s no easy way to go back. One-way door decisions require more caution, research, and careful consideration, as they can fundamentally change the trajectory of your career, business, or life.
  • Two-Way Door Decisions: These are lower-risk, reversible decisions. If the outcome isn’t favorable, you can backtrack, pivot, or change course with relatively minimal consequences. Two-way door decisions give you room to experiment and learn without significant risk.

1. Main Bets: High-Stakes, One-Way Door Decisions

Main bets are your core priorities—the big, high-risk, high-reward decisions that align with long-term goals. These often fall under the category of one-way door decisions, meaning they are irreversible or come with significant consequences if you get them wrong. As such, they require extensive research, planning, and a clear vision of success.

Examples of Main Bets:

  • Career Investments: Taking on a high-responsibility role like CDO, expanding into new markets, or leading a company-wide digital transformation project.
  • Strategic Initiatives: Implementing game-changing technology within your organization that could radically shift your digital landscape.
  • Personal Life: Decisions like relocating for a new job or pursuing a major personal development goal, such as an executive MBA or industry certification.

Success Factors:

  • Thorough Research: Understanding all aspects of the decision before committing.
  • Long-Term Planning: Have a clear roadmap of how success will look over the next few years.
  • Risk Mitigation: Develop strategies to minimize potential downsides, such as contingency plans or exit strategies.

Since main bets are often one-way doors, making these decisions carefully is crucial. They should align with your long-term goals and be based on a well-researched foundation.

2. Options to Play: Flexible, Two-Way Door Decisions

Options to play are more flexible, low-risk decisions that allow for experimentation and innovation. Most of these fall into the two-way door category—if they don’t work out, you can easily pivot or reverse course without causing major disruption. These decisions provide you with the freedom to test new ideas and see what works, potentially leading to significant upside if successful.

Examples of Options to Play:

  • Small-Scale Innovations: Piloting a new technology or workflow in a non-critical area of the business to test its effectiveness.
  • Networking and Partnerships: Exploring collaborations with other teams, companies, or vendors without fully committing until clear benefits emerge.
  • Side Projects: Working on side initiatives that allow you to test new concepts or develop new skills without putting your main responsibilities at risk.

Success Factors:

  • Flexibility: Maintain the ability to change course quickly if things don’t go as planned.
  • Low Investment: Start with a small investment in terms of time, money, or resources.
  • Rapid Iteration: Focus on quick learning and refinement. If the experiment is successful, it could evolve into a main bet.

Options to play are usually two-way doors—if the outcome isn’t favorable, you can close the door and try something else with minimal loss. They allow you to learn and grow without taking on too much risk at once.

3. Can’t Lose: Consistent, Two-Way Door Strategies

Can’t lose strategies are designed to provide stability and security, often involving two-way door decisions that focus on minimizing risk while ensuring long-term sustainability. These are your low-risk, low-reward decisions that ensure you have a solid foundation while pursuing your more ambitious bets.

Examples of Can’t Lose Strategies:

  • Baseline Skills and Competencies: Continuously investing in your personal development, especially in leadership and digital strategy, to remain competitive.
  • Building a Resilient Team: Ensuring your team is capable of handling both routine operations and high-stakes tasks effectively.
  • Financial Security: Maintaining savings or other financial safety nets to give you the freedom to take calculated risks.

Success Factors:

  • Consistency: Regularly invest in these areas to maintain a solid foundation.
  • Long-Term Focus: Prioritize sustainable growth over short-term gains.
  • Minimizing Downside: Focus on stability while leaving room for flexibility in case circumstances change.

While can’t lose strategies often involve two-way doors, they still require attention and consistency to ensure long-term benefits. These decisions may not be exciting, but they are critical for maintaining a stable foundation in your career or business.

Applying the One-Way and Two-Way Door Framework

Understanding whether a decision is a one-way or two-way door can help you determine how much risk you’re willing to take. For one-way door decisions, you need to plan extensively because there’s no easy way to go back. These decisions often align with your Main Bets.

For two-way door decisions, where you can pivot or reverse course easily, you can take more risks and experiment. These decisions often align with your Options to Play and Can’t Lose strategies.

Putting It All Together

To navigate your personal and professional life effectively, it’s essential to categorize your decisions not only by the level of risk and reward (as defined in the Life in Bets framework) but also by whether those decisions are one-way or two-way doors. Here’s a recap:

  • Main Bets: High-risk, high-reward, one-way door decisions that require careful planning and long-term commitment.
  • Options to Play: Low-risk, high-potential, two-way door decisions that allow for flexibility, experimentation, and quick iteration.
  • Can’t Lose: Stable, low-risk, two-way door decisions focused on long-term sustainability and security.

By understanding these two frameworks—Life in Bets and one-way vs. two-way door decisions—you can make smarter, more informed choices that balance risk, opportunity, and stability. The key is knowing which bets to place and when to walk through the right door.

Conclusion

Whether you’re making life-changing career moves or exploring new opportunities, it’s important to understand which decisions are one-way doors and which are two-way doors. Combine that with the Life in Bets framework to approach your decisions with clarity, purpose, and strategy.

Are you ready to make your next big bet? Remember, not all decisions are irreversible, but the ones that are deserve your full attention and planning. Choose your bets wisely and walk through the right doors at the right time.

The Tale of Two Planners: Tabular Thinking vs. Holistic Thinking

by

In the bustling city of Numeria, two renowned event planners, Alex and Lila, were famous for organizing grand events. Though they were the best in the business, their methods couldn’t have been more different.

Alex was a master of tabular thinking. His office was filled with spreadsheets, charts, and tables. Every event detail—budget, vendors, schedules—was carefully categorized in rows and columns. When tasked with organizing a corporate gala, Alex meticulously broke down the event into manageable parts.

  • Venue? Booked with precision.
  • Catering? Vendors are compared based on price, service, and menu options, all calculated on a detailed table.
  • Entertainment? Selected after a cost-benefit analysis, ranked by crowd engagement and performance fees.

His clients loved the clarity of his approach. Nothing was left to chance; every possible outcome was accounted for. But Alex’s events, while smooth and efficient, lacked a certain spark. They were technically flawless but missing the soul and spontaneity that made an event unforgettable.

Meanwhile, Lila, Alex’s counterpart, approached event planning with holistic thinking. She preferred to see the event as a living, breathing experience. Instead of breaking down details into tables and figures, Lila visualized the event as a whole—the ambiance, the energy, the flow of the evening.

When organizing a wedding, Lila focused on how every piece would connect. She imagined the bride’s entrance, how the music would set the mood, and how the lighting would create a sense of intimacy. She didn’t bother with dozens of tables. Instead, she trusted her intuition and creative instincts to ensure everything flowed seamlessly.

The wedding was magical—guests felt every detail had been designed with heart. The experience was cohesive and emotional, but Lila’s less structured approach sometimes led to last-minute adjustments, like a vendor arriving late or unexpected costs.

One day, both Alex and Lila were hired to plan a prestigious international event. Recognizing their differences, they decided to collaborate. Alex’s tables ensured every logistical detail was meticulously organized, while Lila’s vision ensured the event had heart and soul. Together, they delivered an event that was not only flawlessly executed but left guests mesmerized by the experience.

In the end, the moral was clear: Tabular thinking offers order and precision, but combining it with holistic thinking can create truly extraordinary outcomes—where structure meets creativity and details meet the bigger picture.

The event became legendary in Numeria, and Alex and Lila realized that the most powerful solutions often come from balancing both worlds.

Do you have the courage to be disliked?

by

We do not have the courage to be disliked. Getting liked by others is the most basic and social need of us human beings. But if you look at successful people they dared to be different, to take the path where everyone will frown upon.

Can we take that path? Can we build this muscle of being disliked?

I think we can, if we have self-confidence and gratitude with us.

These are not easy, firstly, the biggest challenge is to change the perception of failure. Secondly “Whatever happens, happens for good”, we should count our blessings. If we consistently keep these, we can be different and succeed.

And this doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to be rude or impolite to show a different path, it means being humble but firm and going down the path, which we think is right.

Perform at the next level…

by

“If you’re waiting for that Promotion to perform well and change the World, it ain’t gonna happen. Ever. People get promoted when you’re already performing consistently at the Next Level. And the best way to strategize is what if you were doing the Manager’s job itself”

– Satya Nadella