The Three Idiots the movie: A reflection

Leadership and management was indeed a paramount theme in the movie The Three Idiots. I have noticed a number of our classroom and textbook lessons to come to (virtual) life in the movie. It has boldly created a thick line in defining between being a mere manager and being a leader entirely. Of course, being a leader is much better.

The book about leadership and management by Huston and Marquis would define that managers have subordinates whose willingness are not at all considered. Leaders do not have subordinates, for leaders have willing followers. Many organizational leaders like the Virus do have subordinates, but only because he is authorized in position. His students respect him only by title. Virus failed as a leader because he was not able to give up formal authoritarian control and dealt with involuntarily engineering robots.

I came across the transactional style and transformational style of leading in my textbook, and the movie allowed me to see it in full view.

How virus maneuvered the Imperial College of Engineering was transactional. How parents in the Indian families of Rancho’s friends are in transactional styles as well; in that the manager (virus or the parents) tells the subordinate (students) what to do, and the subordinate immediately follows this “that is how it is and it has to be done”. The robots that they are accomplish tasks without knowing its value. This is where I saw the absence of a transformational leader in Virus and the parents. Dictating instructions does not light up the eyes of these students, they will do as they are told but not genuinely follow. There was an absence of appeal to their heart but an abundance of demand to their minds. Virus saw his students as nothing more than mere students, failing to give them transformation, just mere education.

In my readings, I have stumbled upon this quotation probably by an anonymous writer: “leadership is doing the right thing and management is doing things right” This elucidates the importance of transactional and transformational styles in leading.

A person must have the ability to manage the set and in ordered tasks and accomplish them, while allowing themselves to see the space for growth and learning in the process.

This was a pretty lengthy movie, jam-packed with quite a number of enticing and thought provoking scenes. I am tasked to narrow down scenes that were seriously got caught in the net of my mind and stayed there, and I simply refuse to stick to one. Let me share with you four particular scenes that I found most intriguing.

The first one was the Virus’ story about the keel/cuckoo bird. Virus gave high regards to this bird for it reflected his personality, thus his management skills. I clearly remember him saying, “The bird's life begins with murder. It rests on the nest of other birds and kills the competition, because there is only one place at the top”. The lack of transformational approach to his students is again seen here. Competition is healthy for every man but how Virus perceived it was ruthless.

The second is the scene I found fascinating was of Rancho in one of his engineering class and he had a dispute with his professor about the definition of machines. It is a sad reality that textbook definitions nowadays are the only ones considered correct by teachers. Rancho mentioned that they were being robots and machines themselves by conforming to the system. It leaves no space for students to absorb its meaning but rather requires students to photocopy it to their brains and say it out as it was in the textbooks. Like pretty little parrots.

“Give me some sunshine, give me some rain. Give me another chance to grow up once again”

The tune was haunting. The third scene that captivated me would be the one about Joy Lobo and his sad succumbing to suicide. He was so close to accomplishment but the door was slammed shut before him. He was killed before he got a chance to live. Rancho considered it to be murder, I would have to agree. Pressure is a vicious killer.

And lastly, the scene I consider worth mentioning about is the one when Rancho confronted Virus about the education system as a whole. Although considering the setting to be in India, I do believe it is still strongly relatable to the education mechanisms of the rest of the countries in the world. Grades create a divide, according to rancho. It disappoints rather than inspire. It frightens young minds, rather than inspire.

Leadership starts at home. In a household where command and power is a one-way stream, children could end up being prisoners of systems and conformists because that is how they were raised. Rancho’s two friends were raised in a typical Indian family setting where there was no voice for every member. They carried the fear they had at home to their school, to their social lives, to their life. Families are indeed the basic unit of communities. A child reared from a well-managed home will bring confidence to his school, will grow up non-conforming to his community, will be part of a transformational government and will be a citizen of a better world. This, I heartily dream of.

This film has changed the lens covering my eyes and I now see the word ‘success’ quite differently. I used to wear horse’s eye covers and focus on that bright light up ahead, not road, pavements and souls I am speeding on by. My don’t-commit-mistakes-everything-should-be-perfect father is an absolute example of a perfectionist and I have sadly adapted that. I see now the downside of just aiming for perfection. Perfection is inhumane. I should start becoming a realist more than a perfectionist. (Ok, I am not certain if ‘realist’ is an accepted word in the English language, but my definition I think is quite relatable).

I learned in this film that excellence, not success, should be intentional. The quality of my work in school and accomplishment of other tasks will shift from a conforming-standard to right down outstanding. This would help me shine brighter. Quality always stands out.

I also learned from this film that there is more to life than mere routines and schedules. From waking up, to coffee, to bathing, to school, to NCM classes, to meals and sleep, we all have routines. They help us accomplish what needs to be accomplished. They lessen levels of stress because we already know the what-to-do’s of the day. Familiarity is a safe comfortable ground, yes, but life is more than checking boxes in a checklist.

I realize now routines also allow many of us to get idle. Lethargic in our thinking, shiftless in our relationships, and indolent in the expectations we set for ourselves. I admire Rancho for being so spontaneous and open to every possibility that could be; not fearing any moment and enabling to convince himself that “All Izz Well”.

One thing that made Rancho stand out among a sea of dull engineering students was his passion for learning. I wish I had the same enthusiasm for nursing like how he was with engineering. I know I made the wrong turn by getting to a course I had no heart for. But since I am already here, might as well fall in love with it. I already am starting to. I have been reflecting on this since last year. I realize now why I got removed from section A last year. With my minor classes, from philosophy to English to sociology, history and all the sort, I would mark up not less than 95 in grade. But when it comes to my subjects relating to nursing, I define mediocrity. My realization is that, I declared my despise for nursing before I even gave it a chance.

To be brutally honest, in the early days of my college life, I regretted putting that Nike logo in the tiny box besides the print 'Nursing'. It came upon me that nursing was a crappy path to medical school. Literally, I had to wipe asses and clean crap. Often, I whined like the spoiled-brat that I am to my folks: "Why did you let me take up nursing? Why mom? Why dad? Why? Don't you love me?”. Pretty much, I had the lowest respect for my course. It was to me, domesticity gone pro. Clinical instructors would say "nursing is an art", boy, did that ever made me frown. I found the classroom lectures in my freshman year quite trivial. And the return-demos of procedures such as "proper hand washing", "bed making", and "proper shampooing to a patient"; I found extremely pathetic and thought-allergic.

I tended my patients needs as if patients were made up of nothing but physiologic. My heartless duties did not last too long though. Some patients got to me. I slowly opened my blinds and so how human they are, actually, more human than I was. They had needs, and it was my duty to take care of them. Slowly I saw them at a different light. I saw how fragile my patients are and how big my responsibility is. I began to have an actual appreciation for my course. I am slowly now giving it its much-deserved respect. Hopefully, this new found young love for nursing would help me excel, dragging my grades up of course (not that they mean the world); even if I only have one last year of chance left.

If I am fully committed to what I do, with passion and determination, my excellence with fruit out success. I will strive to be like Rancho, optimizing and living up his full potential.

Ross Ethics: An insight

This theory is not as stiff as the Utilitarianism theory and the Kantian theory; it allows space for the complexities of actual human situations. Ross believes that we should not stick to absolute rules alone when deciding on how to act; he said we must also consider reason and our understanding of the situation.

We are faced with a wide variety of cases in the area of health care everyday. Our patients are not manufactured in a uniform setting from some rusty factory in the universe. There really is diversity. Some patients are available for conformity to the ‘usual’ care given in health care units but a lot of patients have needs and situations that requires us health care providers to consider.

It is of great (considerable) value to the nursing profession because Ross Ethics considers the actual and prima facie duties. In most cases, especially here in the third world setting where the nurse:patient ratio is never one is to one, the fulfillment of our duties are usually tested. Even in dealing with a single patient, we have a split of going to the duty to the client, duty to our superiors or duty to ourselves. For example, we find out that the patient we are caring for is an HIV positive. This puts our safety as first line health care givers on the line. Our physician would say we must not yet inform the patient but then this also creates a conflict about the trust the patient gave to us by simply allowing himself be taken cared of by us.

Now as advocates of general human health, we consider also the family, especially the spouse, who is at highest risk of getting or already having the HIV. This kinds of dilemmas are often present in the areas. We have our duty to ourselves, our duty to out client, our suoerior, our fellow men, to whom do we take care of first? This is where Ross Ethics comes in. It asks us nurses not to stick to stiff heartless rules alone but consider all the aspects that could make our decision right and correct or wrong.