"Why did you to come back?" was my manager's simple question. It took me over three seconds before I answered "Well, it was for personal reasons" laying emphasis on each word. Simple questions deserve no more than simple answers. But behind that answer were thoughts that spanned four years and I knew there was no way I could provide a complete answer.
No time to delve into long histories, the immediate need was to decide what work I'd be doing in the foreseeable future. The department was divided into three teams. It was not difficult to notice that I didn't fit in any of the teams. I never have. The general inclination was to associate me in a team that was more imbalanced than the rest. Quite justifiable, no one would want to tip something off balance especially when its going well. Then I got the word for this situation - Asylum. Just as in a mental asylum where 'mad' people are kept to avoid interference with a like-thinking balanced society or a political asylum to which individuals were condemned if they were seen as a threat to the ruling political power. In this corporate asylum I was required to provide least friction to the outside functions, which were in a state of equilibrium.
The team I was associated with was an asylum for misfits, everyone with diverse ideas and varied quests. My work had no association to this team, but then neither did it have an association to any other team. Did that warrant creating a separate asylum for me? I'm sure each misfit in the team would've wanted one for themselves. I decided I'll use Nash equilibrium to decide on the most socially acceptable option. The world requires you to be more social than do something logical.
I work in a very technical function that requires a very good understanding of the entire functioning of the business and industry and not just a particular aspect. But in the course of time the objectives of many people changed. They wanted a more socially acceptable job of a people manager saving themselves the bother of these mere technicalities. I belonged to the old school of thought that required people to be technically sound and managing people and their expectations were secondary to the work itself. After all, if everyone worked on similar ideas there is little difference in people's expectations and can be handled by anyone with a little personal maturity. Naturally for the current day I was wrong. Or rather, obsolete. It was a Keynesian world, people worked only for personal gains, on projects with a short and limited goals and at many times in stark contradiction to the larger scheme of things.
When I stood at the crossroads a long time ago but couldn't decide on either. I took the forests. Now I stand at crossroads again. Will I take the thicker jungle?
