Penny Wise, Pound Foolish

'Fool why did you make my horse transport clothes to your customer?' - Arnold angrily asked Jony.

Arnold a derby racer by profession owned a stable of well-bred horses. Jony was a washerman and neighbor of Arnold. Arnold used to appoint him as a caretaker of his stable in his absence as he lived alone and had no one to take care of his horses when he was away. He would pay Jony a decent amount for his services. Jony used to happily accept the offer.

But Jony had more interest than the money that he made - no it was not philanthropy either. Whenever Arnold was gone without his knowledge Jony used the horses from Arnold's stable for transporting clothes to his customers. Jony had donkeys for this purpose but by using Arnold's horses he could do more 'rounds' as the horse was faster and earn some extra bucks. This time however Arnold returned earlier than scheduled and caught Jony red-handed.

'Sorry Sir, actually my donkeys were not well and I had pending work so I took a little liberty...' blurted Jony, but before he could finish Arnold said - 'I have a derby race tomorrow. I was saving my horse for the big day. You have exhausted him and he cannot run now. You have messed-up you idiot!'

Jony kept apologizing but Arnold had lost his trust on him.

Keep the ethical issue aside for a moment, do you think what Jony did was right? 

Problem with Jony is that he maps work and animals available. On the contrary Arnold knows where donkeys should be used and where to use horses. 

Without being condescending to the donkey in any manner it cannot run a derby race. At the same time using a horse for transporting clothes is not only a gross under-utilization of his talent but also amounts to exhausting him with meaningless work; thereby tiring him out and preventing him from what he is actually capable of doing or achieving. Problem starts when managers and organizations start thinking and behaving like Jony. 

Old Jony is penny wise and pound foolish!

The Photographer’s Curse

The greatest tragedy for a successful photographer is perhaps that he cannot shoot himself. Not that he would always want to but for the breathtaking photos that he clicks of others, both animate and inanimate, he would perhaps be tempted to pose for his own camera, atleast once. An automatic timer is his only chance but that short span would hardly allow him to use his expertise to explore various angles and perspectives. Success has its own failings. Every success comes with a limitation, a blind-spot that fails the successful. Hence everyone, even the most successful one, needs a sounding board, a different eye to help him explore the unknown perspectives and angles. Ditto for organizations that are successful. And, those who fail to realize this, start a downward slide, many a times unknowingly, and reach doom before waking-up. I call this the ‘photographer’s curse’.


There are countless individuals and organizations that have fallen trap to this curse and met their ignominious endings. Air India is under heavy influence of this curse and faces extinction like never before. Kingfisher airlines acquired this curse that has made it untouchable amongst the investors, partners and passengers alike. And now, Indian Railways has invited the ‘photographer’s curse’ with open arms. Railways, that was started in India by the British in 1853 and since then it has served as a effective means of cheap transport, linking the nook and corner of this nation. But years of populist policies have started to take their toll on railways. The recent booting given to Dinesh Trivedi after he increased the rail fares could prove catastrophic for Indian Railways in the long run. Trivedi, who’s predecessors had not increased the rail fare for the last ten years, had made a brave attempt to take railways out of the financial ditch that it has got itself into and save it for the ‘photographer’s curse’ hastening it’s perpetual doom. The railways minister fell prey to populist politics that counts votes but not the real issues. That ultimately if railways also face a situation like Air India then it would perhaps hurt the poor most; talking-away their only means of cheap long-distance transport is overlooked conveniently.

Imagine the plight of the 1.6 million people employed in Indian railways. If the highest governing authority can be thrown away for showing the organization the ‘right perspective’ then who would be left with any motivation or courage to do anything similar in the future! Nothing could be more unfortunate for an organization than a situation like this and for millions of its stakeholders, be it the employees, the partners, the customers etc.

An organization’s chances of avoiding the ‘photographer’s curse’ depends primarily on two factors –

One, has it got enough talent who can show the unknown perspectives and angles to their organization which has been more successful in the past?

And, second, does an environment or more precisely a culture prevails in the organization where it not a blasphemy to differ, sometimes even radically?

In short is there an engaging culture that allows its talents to express radical differences without fear and the organization is open to accept them if they are right, even if it means taking tough decisions at times. If the answer to any of the above two questions is ‘no’ then the ‘photographer’s curse’ is imminent. One last observation, most of the times the answer to the second question is ‘no’, which means that organizations generally have talent to help them explore the various perspectives but they often do not create the right culture to give their members enough freedom to differ & express, whether in words or in action.