Random Thinking

The defense mechanism of bees is to sting its attacker. I knew that. But I only recently learnt that the bee dies after the sting is detached from its body. Huh? I am not getting this. So this insect stings the attacker to safeguard itself but dies in the process? So exactly how is this a “defense” mechanism?

After researching extensively (I meant wiking, googling…) I found more startling information. The actual process is that when an attack is perceived or an intruder is identified by the bees, a pheromone substance is released that warns all the other bees in the hive and also triggers the “attack process” amongst the worker bees. These bees attack the attacker/intruder by stinging and die in the process while ensuring the safety of the other bees. Hmmmm so, in human terms, do the worker bees “sacrifice” themselves to save the others?

Well, it turns out that this act is not what it is usually perceived as. The crux of this mechanism is that the bees act as a group and not as an individual. That means, in Dawkins language, the bee genes are driving the worker bees to behave in this manner for their selfish motive, that is protecting the queen so that chances of the genes to continue remains high. The bees are behaving “selfishly” and not actually sacrificing anything.

Hah! And here we are trying to categorize this under stuff like sacrifice, greater good etc etc. Continuing in this line of thought, do all human actions have this species backed intent? Or have we gained control over the genes and created our own priorities? Has "thought" gained control over "genes" and are now behaving as two different entities?

I am just rambling on.....

What is the criteria to win an award?

Consider the following case:


Person A - Has just joined a company, is well read, has very good communication skills, good hold over language and a very good attitude. 'A' works for a few years and climbs the corporate ladder steadily. 'A' does most of the things right for the first time, does not make a big deal out of issues but tries to solve them with the end goal always in the mind. 'A' is known as Midas! 'A' is a candidate for 'Achievement' award.

Person B - Is quite a senior when compared to 'A'. 'B' has very good knowledge of the domain and is competent for the role assigned. But 'B' is not very good at communicating with customers. There is lack of clarity coupled with lack of language skills. Added to this, 'B' has an introverted attitude. Over a couple of years, 'B' recognizes these negatives and tries very hard to overcome them. Currently 'B' has shown very good improvement with a string of successes. 'B' is a candidate for 'Achievement' award.


Who should win?
If B wins, then B's confidence greatly improves and it encourages B to do more. Maybe the award is just the right thing needed to boost morale and show B that work is being identified and recognized.
But if B wins, does it not mean that A is being penalized for the traits that A already posseses and that fact is working against A instead of helping A?
Is A's achievement lesser than B's just because A did not have the advantage of "lacking" in certain traits?

One other criterion of assessment could be "quantifying" the business the company made due to each person's contribution. If what A did brought more business to the company then A will be rewarded and vice versa.

Not able to think of any other solution.