Between the Jeffersons and the Hamiltons lies the road to prosperity!

I have been thinking a lot lately on organizational structure and control. The dichotomy of centralizing vs. decentralizing decision making (and power). This dichotomy manifests in so many forms around us. In political sphere - the debate between democrats and Republican on Healthcare or R&D investment by federal government. Within organizations I have seen it manifest in the debate over the optimal organizational structure to drive innovation. The dichotomy of letting senior leadership having the power and authority to place big bets (rallying everyone around them) vs. letting managers/engineers decide what to work on through mechanism such as 20% - do what you want time. The other way it manifests is the debate on how much  control do IT / Security organizations have on what software / devices employee use. If you have been part of any such discussions you will know such discussions do get fairly heated, partisan and even personal in some cases. But over time through experience I have come to realize that the middle ground is often the right path. 200 or so years history of American triumph and innovation should help us guide this. The path to prosperity lies in finding the middle ground between the dichotomy of the Jeffersons and the Hamiltons. Check this out to know what I mean. 

John Adams - HBO series - Ignore the title of the video (too biased)

Almost a year at Google!

It has been almost an year since I started working at Google. This place is phenomenal to say the least and a great learning experience. I have bumped into so many of my friends here at Google - feels like coming back home after a long detour.

Time to get back!

It has been a while since I last updated my blog. There are quite a few things that I want to post. Time to get back!

Murdochification of the Journal!

Recently read a highly provocative article on WSJ - "Why Chinese mothers are superior" which sparked so many comments and reads that has become the most read article on WSJ.com and facebook for 2-3 days now. The article is written by a Yale professor of Taiwanese /Chinese descent and argues that "eastern" parenting style of shaming their children to work hard is better than the "often too soft" permissive "western" parenting style. The article is so polarizing and full of stereotypes that I am surprised it passed the editorial filter at the journal. However, it does make a very entertaining read. I guess this is another sign of Murdochification of the journal (similar to what we see on Fox) - Entertainment sells, news /fact don't!

Happy new year to everyone!

Need powerpoint with 10 slides for new fathers!

We were recently blessed with twins....between changing diapers and short naps I have been reading up on books for new parents - I know more about sleep cycles, parenting styles, +/- of breast feeding etc than I would have ever imagined. However, I found most of these books falling short on multiple ways:

1. They are boring as hell - though have some nuggets of useful information but they are written in a very 50s, 60s verbose style - takes 2 pages to say what can be said in 1-2 sentences.

2. Mostly written for women audience in mind - hey what new age fathers who need punchy, to the point, actionable list of things to do / don't!

Hope somebody is listening - we need a powerpoint presentation with 10 slides for new fathers!

I will watch Ryan Seacrest over Maria Bartiromo, anyday!

It is so discrediting to see how financial news organizations (aka CNBC, Fox News, Bloomberg) color their daily "news stories and analysis" based on how the market closes (up or down) that day - especially when it pretty obvious to any half-literate person that daily market moments are more noise than signal. Do CNBC, Fox Business have any more credibility left to lose!

I am more than happy to switch to E! news and watch some trashy story about a celebrity that I don't care about. At least they don't pretend to be something else. All these years - I used to wonder why would CNBC run "informercials" during off-peal/non-prime business hours; something that have no connection with their branding as a "financial news" channel. Now it all makes sense - both are "high on glitz, low on substance" - one is selling things you don't need, other is selling financial advice that you don't need (and shouldn't use). Watch at your own risk!

If I have to watch somebody yap then I prefer Ryan Seacrest over Maria Bartiromo!

Goodbye Michael Jackson!

Untimely death absolves one of bad publicity, poor judgement, and financial mismanagement!

People didn't care about MJ when he was alive, but they definitely did when he was dead! Life as a celebrity is tough!

Disclaimer: I am/was neither a fan of MJ nor a believer that he was child molester, I am just confused observer!