March 28th, 2012

Collabograte at Indiana LinuxFest

I’ll be presenting on Collabograte at Indiana LinuxFest on April 14th:

http://www.indianalinux.org/cms/schedule2012

March 6th, 2012

Collabograte at PICC ’12

[CORRECTION on the date] I’ll be speaking at PICC ’12 (Professional IT Community Conference) on May 12 about Collabograte:

http://www.picconf.org/picc-12-talkspapers/

February 27th, 2012

Announcing Collabograte!

I’m happy to announce the open source Collabograte project, an integration platform for collaboration components!

https://github.com/kartiksubbarao/collabograte/

Mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/collabograte
collabograte@googlegroups.com

Collabograte helps you integrate collaboration components in your IT environment. Currently, it supports the following software packages:

Cyrus IMAP
ejabberd
INN
MediaWiki
OpenLDAP
Postfix
Sympa
WordPress

Collabograte provides a reference virtual machine implementation that includes all of the above software packages configured with a number of integration points. Example: OpenLDAP stores groups of users which are used as the source of membership for Sympa mailing lists, whose messages are bidirectionally gatewayed to INN newsgroups).

Additional packages (including multiple packages for the same category of software) are welcome — the goal is to be able to mix and match any number of combinations that people find to be useful.

In addition to being a nexus for integration implementations that anyone can build on, Collabograte is also a vehicle for communicating integration-related feedback to the upstream projects and OS distributions. For example: the RPM for a software package can be improved to be more integration friendly; or entirely new features can be added to a software package to make it a better integration bridge between other components. Collabograte provides a focal point for that kind of advocacy and contribution.

I encourage you to check out the project and write to the mailing list with any comments, ideas, questions and feedback.

Here is an overview slide presentation:

February 2nd, 2012

Polarities, Champions, Dementors and Mentors

[ This article is also published on the World Type Alliance web site. ]

For me, the genius of MBTI is how it reminds us of the co-arising, interdependent nature of all polarities, through four simple examples. With each pair of opposites — extraversion and introversion, intuition and sensing, thinking and feeling, judging and perceiving — we see two sides of a single coin. Each pole cannot be defined except in relation to the other. And of course the same is true in combination. The instant that Ne is created, Ni, Se and Si also spring into existence. They’re like the positive-space objects in Escher’s famous “Symmetry” paintings which simultaneously serve as the background for the negative-space objects (and vice versa):

http://www.mcescher.com/Gallery/gallery-symmetry.htm

If you take a coin and balance it on its edge, all it takes is a light tap on the table to tip it over. If you do this a number of times, you’ll see that it tends to settle with one side facing up more often, based on its weight distribution. Our MBTI coins of polarity work in much the same way. We tend to prefer one side and limit the other, based on our inertial makeup.

When we start our journey of individuation, the weight distributions of our coins are often skewed by social conditioning. The side that we present for all to see is influenced by insecurity and fear of rejection. In doing this, we overuse our weakest functions and experience a lot of stress and anxiety. It takes the Champion to pull us out of this quagmire. Champions help us believe in ourselves. They help us shake off some of the layers of conditioning and rediscover the natural balance of our coins. Many of us have found the Champion while learning about MBTI and Jungian psychology. When I (as someone with ENTP preferences) see Champions in the world, they usually speak to my dominant/auxiliary function preferences (Ne and Ti) or at least to my dominant function (Ne).

This works great for a while — shaking off the not-me conditioning, and gaining a deeper insight into our innate capabilities, is fun and energizing. It’s like we’re birds who’ve only used our wings to stabilize our walk, and we now realize that we can actually use them to fly. But as we explore our talents, develop them and become used to them, we can become gradually possessive of them, and even fearful of losing them. Our ego now starts to add deadweight to the privileged sides of our polarity coins. As we do this, we push the opposite sides more and more into the unconscious, and we become susceptible to the Dementor.

In the richly symbolic world of Harry Potter, Dementors are creatures which suck out all of the hope and joy from life. In type development, I look at Dementors as those people who most strongly assert function-combinations that we reject, and with whom we experience depths of iciness and hopelessness. These people aren’t just mistaken in their actions; The very way that they think about things is horribly wrong. We can’t stand how they go about their work or their life. They insistently confront us with the other sides of the polarity coins. They give us advice that we can’t possibly follow, and nothing that we say or do seems to have any influence on them. Our interactions with Dementors are full of conflict, whether it’s active or passive.

We can sometimes recruit others in our cause to defeat Dementors. We’ll even succeed from time to time, and this success seems to be necessary at certain stages in our development. But usually the outcome is stalemate, with lots of ammunition being expended in the process. In my experience, Dementors are typically conjured when we encounter rejected aspects (attitude or type) in both our perceiving and judging functions. For me as ENTP, the three primary dementor complexes are NTJ (5/6 opposing/senex), SFP (7/8 trickster/daemon) and SFJ (3/4 tertiary/inferior). As an example, NTJ (Ni/Te) can reject Ne/Ti in a way that totally undermines it and leaves it in shambles. If I’m particularly attached to an idea (political views are a veritable minefield for this), and an NTJ demolishes it to pieces, that can feel humiliating like nothing else. I might then become defensive or retaliate in kind, which continues the dysfunctional dementor pattern.

In the long run, Champions can’t help us much with Dementors. They’re sympathetic to our plight, and might even help us win some battles. But they can’t stop us from projecting away our rejected content, which is the source of the Dementor’s power.

It takes the Mentor’s wisdom (which can come from any type preference) to overcome this hurdle. Mentors don’t get caught up in the Champion vs Dementor battles. Instead, they encourage us to pick up the polarity coin and give it a spin. When you spin a coin, it gains gyroscopic stability. Even if you bang on the table, the coin won’t fall down. In this dynamic stability, we see an emergent rotating sphere that simultaneously transcends and includes both sides of the flat coin. We’re granted a new perspective on both sides in relationship to the other. This is what ultimately allows us to shake off the extra deadweight that we’ve added to our preferred side. We willingly let go of it, not to submit to the Dementor, but to more fully experience the sphere as a whole. We transform the two-sided coin of Intuition and Sensing into the emergent sphere of Perceiving, just as we transform the coin of Thinking and Feeling into the sphere of Judging. By doing so, we reclaim the projection of the Dementor back into ourselves, and the war (that we were actually fighting with ourselves the whole time) is over. This doesn’t mean that we lose all of our preferences. We’re just not compulsive about them like we used to be. We gain more freedom of choice in our actions, which are now informed by a broader scope of perception and judgment. When the spinning coin stops, it can still land more often with one side facing up, and that’s fine. We continue to accept our natural preferences without forcing any particular weight distribution. We become more present with ourselves and others, and more able to value the “gifts differing” in everyone.

Additional Resources

Here are some some papers that have been very insightful to me on the general topic of polarities and ego development:

Here’s another take that I previously wrote on Mentors and Dementors in the workplace, which goes into some more examples and doesn’t use type terminology:

http://kartiksubbarao.com/mentors-and-dementors

December 30th, 2011

Video Interviews with Carl Jung

Great video interviews with Carl Jung:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biu4ds63lqc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRdpvdvYKz0

July 30th, 2011

Spotify and Grooveshark

I recently set up accounts on Spotify and Grooveshark. Here are the playlists:

http://open.spotify.com/user/kartik_subbarao/playlist/6tOK1QcygkseS9K7Gv6cX5

http://grooveshark.com/#/kartik_subbarao/music

So far, Grooveshark seems to have a better collection of music that I like. For example, I was able to find some TV, movie, and video game soundtracks on grooveshark that were unavailable on Spotify.

July 6th, 2011

MIX Contributions

I recently had the opportunity to contribute to two Hacks on the Management Innovation Exchange (MIX):

These are part of the Communities of Passion Hackathon Pilot being led by Chris Grams. I’ve enjoyed collaborating on this effort!

April 25th, 2011

Open Source, Giving Freely, and Self Awareness

[ This article is also published on opensource.com ]

In a July 2010 post on opensource.com, Jonathan Opp wrote about the nature of giving and participating in a gift culture/economy. One point that he mentions is the benefit of giving freely, without strings attached. I’d like to expand on that, since I think there’s a lot we can learn from recognizing the hidden strings that we sometimes attach to our gifts.

For example, let’s say that I contribute some new features to an open source project. In the next newsletter from the project leader to the user community, the new features are trumpeted as a significant advancement, but without my name being mentioned. How do I feel when I read the newsletter? If I notice myself feeling strongly resentful, that’s an indication that I did attach some strings to the gift that I gave. My resentment may well be justified, and others might even agree that I was wrongly slighted. But that’s not the point — whether justified or not, I wouldn’t feel strong resentment if my gift were truly free.

Now, that doesn’t mean I have to beat myself up about being an imperfect giver. In fact, just the opposite — I can appreciate that I recognized the feeling of resentment as a barometer, right as it showed up. Because if I didn’t, I’d then be acting from that resentment. Resentment might prompt me to snidely react to the next email message from the project leader, which might provoke him to respond in kind, which could then suck me into an escalating conflict that would end up stealing a lot of my energy.

By remaining aware of the feeling, I retain more control over my next actions. Maybe I need more recognition from the project leader to motivate me to continue working on the project. So perhaps I’ll have a skillful conversation (where I may not even ask the question directly) to gauge whether the project leader can meet my needs. Or maybe there’s another project where I can give freely, and I’ll go work on that instead. Or, maybe I sense a growth opportunity to let go of the attachment, and I continue to work on the project with a clearer intent. You get the idea — any one of these approaches is a far better investment of my energy than just lashing out from resentment.

In general, when we give from a state of abundance, we can give freely. We don’t feel diminished in any way. We can enjoy the act of giving just by itself. We can welcome any future benefits that ensue, without fretting about what we were owed. Whereas when we give from a state of scarcity, there are more obstacles in the way, more opportunities for strings to get attached.

One of the places where scarcity shows up in the open source world is in the “leech” label, applied to those who use plenty of open source software without contributing much on their own. After all, the image of one’s very lifeblood being sucked away is pretty scar(ce)y! As with my recognition example above, whether the feeling of being “leeched from” is justified or not, that feeling can only be present in a giver who isn’t giving freely (if he’s giving freely, there are no strings attached, so there’s nothing to leech onto). And here too, if the giver recognizes this feeling as it arises, he can inquire into it more fully before he acts. For example, the developer might recognize that he doesn’t feel leeched from (and might even feel validated by) any number of end users who freely use the code without compensating him in any way; but he feels indignant toward a corporation that uses his code in a profitable product. He might recognize that, if he felt financially secure (abundant), his indignation might vanish. Or alternatively (or possibly even at the same time), he may feel a strong sense of obligation to contribute to open source projects as compensation for having used them extensively, and has formed an expectation that other skilled individuals should do the same. When people do not meet his expectation, he feels cheated/leeched from/etc.

Here, we have an opportunity to uncover some of the most subtle strings that we attach to our gifts. When we “give back” to an open source project out of a sense of debt (scarcity), to compensate for something that we “took” from the project, then we’re not giving freely, even if we are giving virtuously! We may even end up attaching more strings to the gifts as a recipient, than did the giver who gave them!!

This is an extremely subtle point, so I want to make sure I’m being clear. I’m not at all suggesting that any gift motivated by the natural sense of gratitude is tainted. On the contrary, gratitude is an uplifting feeling that propels us to give freely. It’s debt that weighs us down — its gifts become laden with that emotional burden. Gratitude allows us to spontaneously gift it forward; debt constrains us to pay it backward.

When we give freely, we invite others to take freely. We enable them to utilize the gift from their highest level of creativity. Whether they then give freely to us, give freely to others, or do not give freely to anyone, is out of our hands, and we’re okay with that. The better we get at giving freely, the more trust we develop in the process itself. We loosen our possessiveness towards our gifts, and shift our identity towards the source of those gifts. Instead of an idea bank with depreciating assets that we have to protect at all costs, we start to see ourselves more confidently as an idea mint capable of dynamically creating solutions.

Open Source is a wonderful way to experience this power, and I feel an abundance of gratitude towards everyone who makes it happen.

January 20th, 2011

Bonus Fund: Empower employees to fund initiatives with company-matched bonus money

4/14/2011 UPDATE: Here are some interviews with me and other M-Prize folks:
http://www.managementexchange.com/blog/voices-mix-human-capital-m-prize-winners

2/1/2011 UPDATE: My submission has been selected as one of the semifinalists for the HCI Human Capital M-Prize:

http://www.managementexchange.com/blog/10-ways-unleash-best-and-ignite-passion-your-people

I’ve been following the Management Innovation eXchange (MIX) website for a while now, and there are a lot of great ideas that are posted and talked about. I think it’s an excellent forum to share and discuss ideas with a bunch of creative, talented people from all over the map.

I’ve been looking for a forum to share an idea that I’ve had for a while, and MIX gave me an ideal venue. It’s about empowering employees to fund their own initiatives with company-matched bonus money. Check it out:

Bonus Fund: Empower employees to fund initiatives with company-matched bonus money

August 20th, 2010

Organizational Dimensions, Personality Types and Development

In Transforming Your Company with Open Source (slide 9), I list some of the distinctive characteristics of four fundamental dimensions of companies:

PEOPLE
 
Talent and Skills
Organizational Knowledge and Wisdom
Social Networks
Communities of Practice
Values and Ethics
TECHNOLOGY
 
Enabling Possibilities
Creating/Designing Products and Services
Invention and Innovation
Productivity Tools
Platforms
Managing Realities
Operations
Quality
Governance
Organizational Structure
 
PROCESS
Assets, Liabilities and Equity
Investments and Profitability
Sales and Marketing
Customer Value
Strategy and Objectives
 
BUSINESS

In slide 15, I relate the nature of these dimensions to the nature of the psychological functions in Jungian personality theory (see the first few paragraphs of Personality Type and the Open Source Community for some more background information). Although the organizational dimensions aren’t as clearly orthogonal or as polar as the psychological functions, there’s enough there to generate the same kind of dynamics. I think we can go so far as to map these dimensions to their most closely affiliated function:

Organizational Dimension Psychological Function
Technology Intuition (N)
Business Thinking (T)
People Feeling (F)
Process Sensing (S)

I’d like to clarify that I’m not trying to reduce each organizational dimension into its corresponding psychological function. We can use all of our functions when working on any of the organizational dimensions. What I am pointing out is the tendency for a function to have a characteristic association with its corresponding dimension. For example, when we talk about making Business decisions, we’re almost always talking about T decisions that need to be made impersonally and objectively. When we’re exploring Technology, it’s N that is able to make the biggest leaps with invention and innovation. The People dimension is full of complex F considerations — values and relationships. The S attention to detail is instrumental in defining and precisely executing processes that are grounded in reality.

This becomes even more evident in the simultaneously complementary and contentious interactions between the polar-opposite pairs T-F and N-S. T wants to make objective decisions and F wants to make personal decisions. S wants to look at specific experiences and N wants to look at general observations.

According to Jungian personality theory, when we develop our personalities, we develop, or differentiate, a preferred function for taking in information (either N or S) and a preferred function for making decisions (either T or F). As we gain competence with our preferred functions, we tend to identify with their ways of seeing and dealing with the world, and to disidentify with their opposites. For example, a T type might pride himself on making the “right” decisions based on objective criteria, irrespective of his personal feelings. Whereas an F type might pride himself on making the “right” decisions based on his personal values, irrespective of the circumstances. As we grow, we discover the limits of our preferred functions, and realize that they’re only giving us half the story. We then proceed to integrate the perspectives of the other two functions. We still retain our preferences, but we relax our grip on them. We recognize the value of others who are strong in areas that we are not. We can see the world more clearly, and can make wiser decisions.

Now let’s tie this back to the organizational dimensions, particularly as they are embodied in large organizations. Take a “business type” who prides himself on results like increasing market share, expanding the size of his company and maximizing financial return on investment. He may see the technology, people and process dimensions as necessary costs of doing business. He may even recognize that, when developed, they can give his business a competitive advantage. But apart from that, he doesn’t dwell on them. He’s not interested in “technology for technology’s sake”, he isn’t a “people person”, and he doesn’t “tolerate bureaucracy”.

The same kind of picture can be painted for others who identify strongly with the people, process or technology dimensions. They may see the business dimension as necessary for providing their job and paycheck. They may even recognize that, when developed, business can yield new opportunities and enriching experiences to learn and contribute, and evolve in their areas of expertise. But they’re not “business people” — they’re motivated more by other things.

It’s valuable to develop a basic level of competence with each of the dimensions. This helps us gauge where our energy, skills and interests are most aligned, and where they aren’t. We can ascertain where others can be most helpful to us and where we can help them. We can then proceed to develop mastery-level expertise in our most closely aligned dimension(s), with a minimum of distraction or second-guessing.

Just as with the psychological functions, as our awareness increases, we can integrate the perspectives of the other organizational dimensions into our thinking. Our attitude goes from seeing the other dimensions as unavoidable nuisances, or accepting them in a utilitarian, transactional kind of way, to actively recognizing their value on their own merits. We are then able to place solid trust in those with strengths in other dimensions, and work with them interdependently to achieve broader goals.

In building this awareness, I think it’s important to keep in mind this insight from personality theory: We realize our highest potential when we honor our natural preferences, not when we shortchange them. That doesn’t mean that we cling to them, but it does mean that we don’t fool ourselves into expecting great results when we adopt someone else’s preferences instead. Trying to turn a process-wonk into a technology wizard (or vice versa) is ultimately a recipe for mediocrity, not excellence.

When organizations coach people with these principles in mind, they can optimize the talents of their people and accelerate their professional and personal growth.