You get what you negotiate.

You get what you negotiate.

Is negotiation necessary? Does it make you happier? Consider the following:

You meet an old friend at a bar, and casually while catching up he lets you know that he plans to buy a new watch and wishes to sell his current one. Curious you examine his watch, and take a fancy to it. When asked what is the price, he says, “Let me know what YOU will pay for it”. And you hesitate, and mention and amount (it does not matter what is the amount). He says Ok, it’s yours and you exchange money for the watch and shortly later you both leave.

Are you happy?

I bet not. You think so for the moment. However, back home you tell your spouse about the incident and you narrate the event. Your spouse asks, ‘how much did your friend want?’. You have no idea. It was you who suggested a price and he readily agreed. You are now left in some doubt, if indeed the watch is worth the price you paid.

Is your friend Happy?

Similarly, your friend is asked by his spouse, “what was he prepared to pay?’ You state the price he offered and she enquires, “Could you have asked for a higher price?’. You never did. You let it go at the first price. You are left wondering if indeed you had got a good deal.

So both are unhappy right? Remember, when you negotiate, and effectively, both sides are happy.

We are always in a negotiation

Every moment, either with ourselves or with others, we are negotiating. It’s not necessary that we are aware of this, (it may be unconscious) yet the fact is that we are doing so all the time. Pause and think about your day, and the various negotiations that come up.

In managing our relationships with the other, we are unconsciously trying to maximize the principle of maximum interest for ourselves. Most of us, aim for, “ I win, You lose’. In this strategy you lose in the long term. You may win a couple of rounds but you damage the relationship forever. At all points, you need to ‘keep change for the other side, always’. Ensure a ‘win-win’.

In management training, if you and your opponent play a blind game of voting Yes and No, simply follow his lead. Simply follow the following rule: ‘Play out his last move in the subsequent move’. Doing so, will get you both to a collaborative strategy.

While negotiation, we always believe that one side is in opposition to the other (adversarial): that may not be the case at all. What you ‘demand’ or ‘make concessions on’ may not be of the same value as perceived by the other. Most effective negotiators never give away anything without making a demand themselves, following the golden rule of, ‘If you xxxxx (give me) , then I zzzzz’(trade you). 

Effective negotiators recognise each stage of negotiation and quickly move across the argument stage rather quickly, to the other steps. An argument just begets and argument and is pointless. Here is how most effective negotiators move through:

• Argument

• Signal

• Proposal

• Counter Proposal

• Bargaining

• Agreement

• Confirm Agreement

• Closure

If you enjoyed reading this, share your comment.

A Tale of Somebody, Nobody and Everybody

A Tale of Somebody, Nobody and Everybody

A man is struck down by a speeding car, he falls to the ground and smashes his head, the ground slowly gets covered with blood. For a while, Everybody watches, Nobody reacts, Somebody is supposed to do something. This is one scene. There could be multiple others.

We hear about them each day at work and at home and on all social occasions. ‘Somebody’, says one person ‘should do something about this’. ‘Nobody’ seems to be interested in just about anything that requires something to be done. While ‘Everybody’ is waiting forever for ‘Somebody’ to act all the time.

Wonder why Nobody has thought about this? says one person to another. Where is Everybody? Seems to me Nobody and Somebody have taken a solemn oath to stay away with non-acting, while all actions seem to be under the remit of ‘Somebody’.

How often each day, do you use these three references: Somebody, Nobody or Everybody. Who are they really? Do they really exist? Will these three ever act?

Fascinating but these three types of folks live with us ever present in our daily lives. The reality is that we are ourselves part of all three: we are Somebody, Everybody and Nobody. That’s you and me.

When Somebody fails to act, the YOU, that is part of Somebody fails to act. We are responsible for what happens in existence, and we owe it to ourselves to feel responsible to what happens to it and to feel responsible for what is happening or non-happening.  Nobody, is also YOU and I: we choose to stay inattentive to awareness of that which is around us. Yet, the YOU and I in Everybody is to hold responsibility for what happens.

Maybe we need to think beyond the ‘I’ that creates the separateness. We are all part of the universal body-mind: as the drop is part of the ocean. Then through this lens there can be no separation: everything is one, interdependent and inter related in mutual co-existence.

Stay aware: watch each time you use these three words. Become aware of the self-negation. Awaken to your own potency, when you declare: I am responsible!

What's with Reading...?

What's with Reading...? 

Just yesterday I shared a post:

“Interesting... I share a video and 800+ view and several likes (20) in a few hours.I share an article ( takes a few hours to write) and it gets 50 views at best, similar likes. What is this saying about us? Are we on a fast lane? Are we consumers for ‘2-3 liners’?”

And ….in less than 24 hours, many likes, and comments, than say articles I have posted here.

The world is surely changing: Analogous to the cricket from a 5 day test match, to a one day, to the new T20 format, games evolve. And I guess so has books, giving way to articles, to short summaries, to 2-3 liners.

I guess, I am old school. I recall the thick Thomas Hardy ‘Far from the Madding Crowd’ and the Character of Gabriel Oak, the eternal patient lover on the side line, the fascinating books of Ayn Rand and over the years the 1000 plus books I have read. Back then, I recall now with immense nostalgia my own HG Wells ‘time travel machine’ that could take me forward or back ward in time – said simply, Books.

The modern bookstore is giving way to e-copies ‘quick airport reads’ – slim editions. Most content today are PDF files of Summaries of Books or Articles. We are saying less in each short burst, but saying ever so much in the multiple bursts of articles. I often wonder, what is this trend all about? Do you have an insight?

Again, back then, in my teens, leisure time was spent with basic toys, board games and TV watching (when it finally arrived) was a group activity. The radio was primarily for news or music from Ceylon. Interactions were fewer and travel ever more sparse.  The newspaper was our primary connects with the world outside.

Books were my favourite companion then, and a lifelong companion now. Curled with a book, I am transported to new worlds, events, time, and characters, culture. In the 1:1 silent connect, the book and I, my imaginative mind, simulated by books conjured up sounds, pictures, living people, introduced me to new lands. But most of all, I discovered the power of ‘ideas’. New thoughts, bold thoughts, strange thoughts.

Reading connected me to the living: I could see a little deeper, connect more, experience more, and understand more. Books symbolised the magic of ‘rubbing the Aladdin’s lamp’ and make wishes come true.These days, I have started to write as well, to express and relate with the world around me.

To each age, its new propellant for personal growth. Times must change, old order giving way to new, as Tennyson says, lest one idea corrupts the world.

For me, give me a great book, some time for self, and that’s my Nirvana. 

We Die Twice!

Clayton Christensen, a Harvard Professor, who died earlier this year wrote a memorable article, “How will you measure your life?’ he argued that “many of us might default to measuring out lives by summary statistics, such as number of people presided over, number of awards, or dollars accumulated in a bank, and so on, the only metrics that will truly matter to my life are the individuals whom I have been able to help, one by one, to become better people”. These, he says, are the metrics that matter in measuring one’s life.

We die twice.

Once organically, the second in memory.

Once, when the breath (prana) leaves our body (in fact interestingly it is said, the last thing before death is when the sound dies from our ears) and we die once more, when the last person who knows our name dies too.  

Few of us will have the fortune to embed our name over centuries, unlike Socrates or a Jesus. Even most loved celebrities live in our hearts for a while, but soon get forgotten: a cohort say that would remember Marilyn Munroe would soon pass on and then to oblivion.

Some would be remembered for long. Elton John, says Goodbye to England’s Rose, Lady Diana:

And it seems to me you lived your life, Like a candle in the wind

Never fading with the sunset,When the rain set in

And your footsteps will always fall here, Along England's greenest hills

Your candles burned out long before,Your legend ever will

Your footsteps will always fall here, Along England's greenest hills

Your candle burned out long before your legend ever will. 

Blessed are We

I would hold myself blessed if I:

• Lived my personal purpose and had the opportunity to potentialize my ‘best self’ at work or within society, and contributed to adding good.
• To have found a partner, who loved you and you loved back dearly.
• A meaningful job that allowing you an opportunity to earn your livelihood.
• A faith, that offered a high purpose to life.

Our moment on this earth is short-lived. If we viewed ‘everything we do’ from the realisation that there is no beginning, no end: then all acts would fall into perspective. In the end what is left of us is a tombstone, a marked grave, a picture in a frame, to whom friends, relatives and kith return, till memory holds true. Then with passage of time, no one returns, and the inscription merely records our name: date born, date died.

To dust thou art, and to dust thou shall return, says the bible.

What would you like to be remembered for?

 

Do you have a Dream or a Goal?

We all believe it is important to set Goals. Research confirms that those who set goals do better than those who do not, especially if it is self-generated and vivid and regularly monitored. What you may find surprising is that revealing your goals widely (as commonly advised) may actually boomerang in your motivation to meet the goals.

In this article, I explore goals more fully….

When we truly tap that energy within a goal, then only can we and empower oneself. Alive within a goal is a deep purpose that needs to be understood. A desire to see a force of potential. It is only this that inspires and lifts. Ideally, a goal should be replaced by VISION - it is broader! A vision is a direction, like a sketch. When it becomes a clearly defined map, it is disabling. It is like a globe, where Greenland appears larger than Australia, but one must know that it is an illusion (Australia land mass is 3 times that of Greenland). Knowing that goals are itself a perspective, it allows one to traverse the path, with one's own experiences.Goals that give meaning to our lives is a prayer, else it is an albatross!

Research says that once you fix a goal you limit yourself. Take the case of Roger Bannister breaking the one mile run under four minutes. If you know it is under 4 minutes that sets the record in the mind and for years it will act as a constraint. Take the bumble bee. It is not aware of the laws of thermodynamic. Yet it does not know this and it flies!

Goals are Games we Play

Goals are like a 'Finance Plan' - it is a general direction. It is an assumption. It is a plan, it is a commitment to deliver. It is a path forward. it is indicative of progress. It is a journey with stretch. At all times it must be remembered that this 'goal' was based on a foundation of - beliefs, assumptions, values, knowledge and desire to succeed. As such, rigidity to one's goal becomes a burden.

Goals are like pieces on the chessboard. To many there are powerful like queens and knights. Yet, they are all wooden pieces and lie inert in the box when the game is over. All equal. All inert. All lifeless. All meaningless. Only in the game does the player give it life. This is important to remember, that the chess pieces are portent or otherwise, only as per ‘rules defined and agreed’ and by the players, not by itself.

At its best, a goal lifts us up, at its worst it imprisons us to a self-slavery, or worse mortgaged to others. This must be understood. If it becomes a 'duty' or a compulsion, then we no longer enjoy it - we do it mindlessly, as if it is the only thing we have to do. I hear many people say, “What to do? This is my duty so I do it”. I disagree - one should do it only if one enjoys it, not otherwise. when one is aware of what one is doing, fully aware and enjoying what one is doing - then there is a goal.

What is an alternate to sharp Goals?

Rather than goals focus on system instead. If you are a Sports Coach, your Goal is to win the tournament, your System is what your team does at practice each day. If you are a Writer, your Goal is to write a Book, your system is a writing schedule each day. If you are a runner, your goal is to run the marathon, your system is your training schedule each day.If you are an entrepreneur, your goal is to build a Million Dollar Business, your System is Sales and Marketing.

We are all motivated by 'wins' and get depressed by 'losses'. Have milestones along the way, so that you feel you are moving towards something each day. Keep the milestone related to each day and celebrate the small wins. Alcoholic Anonymous focus on staying 'Alcohol Free' each day! That's measurable each day and wins or losses are easily measurable. The trick is not 'avoidance' ( like stop smoking), instead it is about, 'smoke free today'.

Timothy Gallwey, in his book, 'The inner Game of Tennis' shares that we have two selves - Self 1 and Self 2. Self 1 is egoistic and tends to worry, while Self 2 is intuitive. He argues that one should allow for Self 2, and let the game be played by intuition and by the subconscious rather than with an outcome focus. And finally to discover the Self 3, a better human being.

Can we manage without Goals?

It is seductive to hang onto goals. It’s a game we humans play.

Tsu Lao, would have commented, there is no need to journey across to the shore. The shore opposite is here. The beginning exists with the end: the alpha with the omega. When one has a sense of one's full journey, through a vision of his own purpose, there is an inner light that drives him forward. he moves on his own violation – ‘phototropicity’, I think scientist call it. Then there is no need to travel: one moves only in the RIGHT path. One moves intuitively only in the correct ways.

Let me simplify: if one is a great batsman, he needs no targets! he just enjoys batting and is aware each moment. He plays to each ball, he is alive to each moment. Then he knows what to do when a ball comes through: he knows what to do with a full length, good length or short pitch - he acts without targets. He acts only with a vision and purpose and values. He steps forward or back, or sideways. He moves all at once. He is ‘here and now’ – fully aware. The spectators do not see a bowler or a batsman: they see a display of genius. Martina Navratilova, a tennis player when questioned about her age replied that ‘the tennis ball does not know that’.

For when one is in flow, the actor, and the scene disappears - just the act remains, the dancers give way to the dance. Then there is only the dance, no dancers at all. The musician and the flute disappear – just the music remains. Goals, when embraced , without pressure, lift pleasure; when taken on as 'desires' or obligations de-energise. You can life an alternate without goals: attach oneself to an inner purpose. Abandon measures and milestones. They do limit.

Goals belong there - not here! Goals lies in the future: an expectation. A phantasy. Drop Goals: here is. It is here already. It has always been here. No need for a search - that is a desire. Drop the desire, drop the source of the desire, drop goals. This world here is real, with the other: an unreal, never to be realized.

When there is no goal, one relaxes: with nothing to do, the ego disappears. The 'I' disappears. Then acceptance, grace begins.....the Bhagwan within unfolds....Drop all goals! Stay aware!

May I request you to not simply like and move on. Do join me in this conversation. What do you think about Goals?

Rules and Principles - Are they Similar?

Rules and Principles - Are they Similar?

A Rule compels you through threat or punishment to do things others deem right or good.

Principles are guides to respectful living, freedom and being open.

Why do we need rules?

Rules are put out by a community to guide collective action. We do need rules to govern our lives: to play its game. Rules provide a reference point for how a game is to be played out. Imagine a game of soccer or cricket with no rules: it would be chaos. Even in contact sports like boxing you have the queens’ rule. These rules in organisation include code of conduct, compliance guidelines or Company Policy. They are created for consistency, fairness and an opportunity for a level playing field.

Often the rules provide for a handicap, where the forces are unequal or dissimilar in terms of natural endowments. Like in the case of horse racing or golf. These are affirmative actions to create a balance. Same could be said for the reservation policy. We all like rules, it allows for a pattern of order (traffic rules), builds trust and respect around how each person can hoped to be treated. When we bend rules covertly, we signal, unfairness, arbitrary whims and fancies and we end up being distrusted. However, for some of the rich, the powerful, rules are disliked: they wish to find loopholes: through Jugaad. Imagine all of us succeeding through ‘Jugaad’: we never would.

Principles to live by

At and individual level, rules turn to personal principles. Remember, there are no eternal rules: every rule lies in its context, and needs to change once context changes. ‘The old order, changeth yielding place to the new, and God fulfils himself in many ways, lest one custom should so corrupt the world”, write Lord Tennyson.

Our Indian tradition (Dharma) asks for us to be mindful of collective discharge of duties and obligations (rights are not stressed) but also to follow one’s own path (Sva-Dharma). It emphasises that we should be a part of community; but foremost to be individual. It offers the principle of Appadharma to guide through crisis and emergencies.

Rules and Principles

Conceptually, rules come from ‘location’ in context: they are prescriptive, often stale and anachronistic. Uncalibrated, and without reform they become draconian, living in staleness, living corpses of the past, of dead traditions and rituals whose original sense and meaning have been lost to obscurity.

Rules are to be followed as a general principle but abandoned if dysfunctional. Stake not your life, but your meanings about life, said Pulin Garg, my beloved teacher and Guru. Like goals, they provide direction but are meaningless by themselves. Many of the rules of war and tradition were abandoned in the Mahabharata for instance.

Our principles are with ourselves. Do we drive across a red signal light, because others do it, or if no one is around? Are our principles relative to others or absolute? In our professional career, having competencies are important, but it is our principles that act as a ‘booster rocket’ to take our career upwards. Many careers have been ruined because this has not been understood.

In the end, like a chessboard, the rules create the game! But when the game is over, all the board pieces go back into the same box – inert, equal, same. Rules are ephemeral, principles are eternal.

Where do you sit with this? Join me and comment on post. Please avoid ‘Like’ and moving on. I would love to have you engage.

Hey, it’s Crazy and Sad!

 

Hey, it’s Crazy and Sad!

With the Covid pandemic amidst upon us, it has become a trendy to use the managerial acronym: VUCA, short for volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, and a catchall for “Hey, it’s crazy out there! So what are the Competencies that allow for employees to be effective in such crazy times?

The law of entropy (the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity), a universal phenomenon plays itself out as simple moves to complex, single correlates to multiple, and order to seemingly disorder. The only constant they say is Change. In such times, I would like to share my reflections what are the critical issues employees need to manage in such VUCA times.

For one, Soothsayers are many. Truth is, no one really knows what is out there. For many, the future will not be unknown, some will make it happen. Rather, than crystal ball the impossible, I would urge we develop ‘white water rafting’ skills to navigate our current environment and work our way through the ‘next twenty yards’.

The Metaphor of White Water Rafting

The metaphor throws up many competencies relevant to our times. I shall elaborate on four.

For one, Need for Speed. Almost everything is required to be done in ambitious deadlines. During such times, one cannot cross the chasm in two leaps, and one needs to simultaneously work on both the urgent and the important. Change agents need to work hard, and smart, anticipate issues that would come up, while consolidating gains already made. At these times, discerning the 80:20 will help as well, and to avoid being trapped with ‘busyness’.

Secondly, need to manage ambiguity and uncertainty. Change by definition, means the design elements are changing. I have realised that people are open to change, provided they can be helped through moving out of their comfort zones, feel ‘safe’ in the change process, and if asked to participate. The key is to ensure regular communication at all times: milestones and clear path to destination. In addition, fair set of consistent and fair and sensitive principles, on how people would be managed in such times.

Thirdly, the change champion needs to manage personal frustration. During each day, there would be countless trough and peaks: trials and tribulations. She requires to be balanced and moderate her emotions through this period. Emotional intelligence is the act of using one’s emotion for self and the other. Frustration is the result of ‘what I love is threatened’ and hence the reactivity that follows. Ensuring that thought, emotions and actions are balanced and in harmony is key during such stressful times. Hope and curiosity are two positive emotions that exist in troubled times. Crucial to see the ‘glass half full’.

Finally, during explosive change the change agent needs to manage personal obsolescence. Managing change requires new skills: often drawing from past experience, often crafting new solutions, most often re-inventing oneself. The ability to reflect and learn and be willing to recognise one’s own limitations and lack of knowledge is crucial. Wise is he, who knows that he knows not.

What do you think? What other metaphors come to your mind?

Please Comment and Engage, and let’s start a Conversation, shall we?

Most things Divide, Few things Unite

While most imagined ideas divide us as a society, three things allow us to engage, albeit gain momentum towards collectivity: money, politics and religion.

In-group/Out-group (Apna / Paraya)

Our brains are wired to create psychological boundaries to define what’s in/what’s out. All species mark their territories: what is 'ours' and what is out there, 'not us'. What is 'us' is then a subject of bonding and relationship: the family, the commune, the property we hold, our faith and beliefs. Naturally, to engage with the notion of what is ‘ours’, boundary conditions need to be imposed, be it a tribe or a church or a panchayat.

This bonding defines and overly crystallises a strong culture of who we are and how we do things around us. Culture is essentially then what divides us from others, but allows us to unite us amongst ourselves. The culture within is the power energy within to create the inter connectedness, within, yet it is also the basis for the fragmentation with that outside itself: the 'other'.

The imagined notion creates the tradition, the rituals and the passage of what is the norm: that which is acceptable and that which is frowned. The culture flows from the dominant logic, the DNA of deep seated values over time, and the alignment of multiple infrastructure: Processes, Work systems, rituals, that allow for its prorogation.

Even within the commune, divisions and classes are created to sub-divide so that it helps each one to relate with the other. The very culture that is created meets it antithesis: the rebellious ‘sub-culture’ as its counterpoint. Paradoxically, the rebellion itself is coalesced within a structure such that the 'sub culture' itself is uniquely held. Way back in the 60’s, the US Culture gave way to the rebellious Hippie culture, the sub-set having a clear identifiable whole. Either one or its counterpoint are held in structure: both allow itself to confirm to norms.

Culture and beliefs are not similar

An important distinction to note is the term Culture and Beliefs: they are not the same. A member of a commune may subscribe to a culture, but arrive at it from a belief system quite different to another. Organisations that try to unify 'beliefs' pay the price of frustration, an impossibility. What makes Jack come to work ( perhaps job security) may be quite different to what motivates Jill (the cordial work atmosphere). Clearly, aiming for a ‘Shared Values & Culture’ with a north star of ‘Organisational Purpose’ is enough and can unite. Trying to change the individual belief systems of all of the members to a 'common one' would be fruitless and impossible.

The unknown 'out there' beyond the boundary is treated with suspicion: it is but natural that neighbouring countries would harbour distrust of each other. What is unknown, is distrusted, leading to splitting and projection. Trust in one's own commune and distrust with those outside are the two natural axis of human emotions.

Within the commune collaboration can exist and extend itself on the imagined notion: a tribal chieftain will have tribal members, wealth would be jointly owned or secured through powerful laws and a religion would emerge that would unite the commune. So to, culture within an organisation. Collaboration works best when individual and group interests are conjoint. That's the way it has been for many centuries: a world that belonged to many numerous small worlds.

So what would make one tribe engage with another?

I argue that it would be reasons of money (trade), a feeling of superiority of one's religion over another or a lust to amass more political influence: to have a larger tribe, and soon a kingdom.

It is these forces that have paved the way for global colonisation, that has paved the way for mass religious conversions and where annexation has not been possible then the next best alternate is lucrative trade. Lucrative trade is but a start, akin to the East India Company that gradually harboured ambition for political power of the territory. It is this desire for political power that has created NATO, the Euro, and international federations.

The Imagined Order

The imagined order is what is. Fromm refers to Social Character, Harari uses this term. There is no reality. The imagined order is itself transient and changes with passage of time. The imagined order creates the values and laws for that transition art period of time then it adapts to a ever changing set of values for it to cope and adapt. All values are transitionary and would change. For what is created must change, and eventually die to a new form. That is an immutable law of nature.

One astronaut wisely remarked when viewing earth from a shuttle, that the earth was just one unified body Inter related and interdependent on its parts. He could spot no boundaries. All boundaries are man-made. The man himself is a bounded self: arising from a self-notion of what is him and not him. The ego in the self creates the boundaries within man, and around man. Ego is the false self. It does not exist. It is like the shadow that lurks around but is never there. It is the Ahamkara (one of the devolutes in Sankhya Philosophy) of the fusion between Prakriti and Purush. Our projection of ego creates the incessant needs that can never be satiated. Left to ourselves, sans ego, our needs would have been adequately met.

If we are to unite we must become fully aware of the forces within that divide! Like the article picture we are all unique fingerprints - there is no other like us. Our possibilities exist to connect with all unique beings!

What forces do you believe would support us to Unite?

Please join me and Comment on the Post.

We shall Overcome

Status is online

Steve Correa

Executive Coach & HR Consultant Author, The Indian Boss at Work: Thinking Global, Acting Indian

94 articles

We shall Overcome

Soothsayers are having a field day. Has there ever been a time, when we have not been paranoid with the pace of the future? Too much is already said on COVID and the new world of work. Whether Covid or not, the world was inevitably to move from globalisation to polarisation. We saw those trends with each country focussing on ‘Made in Country of Origin’. Polarisation will strengthen (enabled and slowed by technology) but it will give way to ‘universal shared values’ and which comes from a growing consciousness, which would trigger a world of mutual trade and exchange based on the axis of Values.

Why do I say this?

Societies collectively develop Conscious Consciousness. However, even while we collectively develop our conscious intelligence, this varies from individual to individual.

Ken Wilber, a leading thinker, although controversial, posits his version of consciousness – tetra apprehension. He explains how this dynamic interaction may be happening. In this, the ‘previous moment’ is made an object for the subject in this moment, who adds to it, a ‘newness’ of creativity. As the new subject reviews the previous subject, by way of an ‘object’, it includes and enfolds the past, and creates a causality to the present, not just a strict determinism, but with the added newness, it transcend the causality, and creates new possibilities.

By way of an example, the evolution of our human brain has evolved in somewhat this manner: it contains within it, the limbic, reptilian, mammalian, even while the neo-cortex, is the more recent phenomenon. Ken asserts that the Universe has three ultimate’s: the One, the Many and the ‘creative advance into novelty’. As such all phenomenon must include and transcend, and with the newness create a new subject. Through this process, more and more order is built from more and more chaos. This newness is not a random chance, instead the Universe is winding up, with the creative advancing novelty continuing to add to the complexity and sophistication.

In this each individual is ‘growing up’ to a new consciousness. In other words, integral theory posits that evolution is not limited to the exterior forms of reality (of both matter and organisms), but it is also evident in the interior spaces of reality, i.e. development of culture and consciousness. Sri Aurobindo echoed a similar though when he dealt with the ascending planes of consciousness from matter to Satchitananda, but unlike Wilber postulates that consciousness lies outside the four quadrants and only manifests or expresses itself in them.

Communication technology has allowed for us more instant human touch and opportunity to connect. The changes that lie ahead are aligned with the eternal principles of consciousness. We shall overcome! Our path will lie not just in technological advancement, but in human consciousness as well. We will continue to progress, being even more resilient. Of that I have no doubt. I see the young ably capable to lead the future. My world is filled with hope and possibilities.

Many of you click Like and move on. I would love for you to Engage – drop a word or two. Let’s connect.

The Heart never Doubts, the Head never Trusts

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous?Actually, who are you not to be?

You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world.There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people will not feel insecure around you.We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone and as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give others permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others. - Marianne Williamson

Our deepest fear is to doubt ourselves, give credence to all the belief systems we have formulated over the years: some by others, most by ourselves. Do you find yourself in a space where you have started to doubt your beliefs, or have started to believe in your doubts? Bewildered and anxious by actions and prescriptions by people around us, we have adapted self for the sake of others, and lost our own 'original face'. 

Who we really are, we don’t know.

Our doubts (when looked at deeply) contain the deepest fear of total annihilation of our being. Of death. Shakespeare once said, “Cowards die many times before their death, the valiant tastes of death but once”. Our doubts come from the use of our mind to assess the processes of our interiority. That which was a friend to be used outside to manage our world turns foe when we use it internally to assess who we are. The mind is not helpful, it leads to overthinking. The mind is always asking questions. When one answer is provided, another question comes up. The mind is a master – it seeks to stay in control.

We are perfect in every way. Our imperfections as seen by others from time to time are perfect and much required as we evolve. We need to chase no ideals, no goals, no need to be different. No need to be like the other. All we need to do is to be ourselves: we are competent, loveable and compassionate but we have forgotten to trust ourselves. 

Our mind will forever doubt, but our heart will always trust. 

When we drop the 'doing' and realise we are perfect in our imperfections we get to the destination in an instant. I would rather we thrive, rather than forever strive. A little of ‘inferiority’ is great to propel us further, but not if it becomes a complex itself.

We live with doubt, guilt and shame. These are not natural. They are imposed from outside. Stay in your Heart. Stay Trusting. Stay Aware! 

Reflections on the Lost art of Listening

Just today I listened to you,

Share your hope, Your dreams,

your screams of hurt and inattention,

your celebrations, triumphs and success

your world as you see it, expectations and disappointments

You made me realise

In this moment You matter, not I,

To listen to all, said, but you said more,

and I heard that too

and you shortened out some words,

but I could catch that too

To view your world just not in black and white

but in full colour, resplendent of who you are

not just a visual, but to catch the sound

the feel, and most of all,

that ‘lump in the throat’ that is yours

In your sharing you left me a gift

That I could be worth ‘sharing with’

To realise that I can only offer understanding

If I understood myself

While I heard my inner voice listening to you

I realise I must ask of myself

All I have to work on is I

This has been my realisation. Thank you.

Listening is not hearing. Hearing is about what is being said. Listening is being attentive to the speaker. In listening, we are tuned in to what is being said, felt, also said, also unsaid. Listening requires us to be deep connected to the other, offering total presence and with deep awareness. Listening is not about simultaneous evaluation while the speaker is speaking, instead it is about suspending judgements or biases or pre conceptions. Notice the number of times we interrupt, sometimes even rudely. Notice how often we cut across someone else’s conversation.

When one is totally attentive – meditatively attentive, one reaches a flow of connectedness with the other. Bonding through deep listening is stronger than with just words. There is deeper understanding of silence, than that which comes from words. When as coaches we LISTEN, we acknowledge, show respect, display empathy, connect, show presence, and become deeply aware.

Listening is also to be directed to oneself: Our thoughts in our mind (24x7) does not mean we are thinking – far from it! It just means that our thoughts are ephemeral presence that last momentarily, but call us to attention all the time. They have a short shelf life, but make a huge buzz in their lifetime. In fact we are bombarded with our thoughts. Like dust debris that seeps in, they are random, and directionless. They prevent focus. They de-energise over time. Through cultivated mind discipline, ie: stilling of the mind, we can graduate towards Right Thinking. (for further reading refer to Patanjali – Yoga Sutra).

On Mentorship

As I review my current station in life and my role as mentor and coach, I explore the true nature of mentorship. What role does it play and its significance? I explore childhood and the youthful years and offer context.

Initial Caregiver

As a child, post the initial period, there is a quick realisation that there is a ‘self’ and then there are others. The joyous stage of being 'in the womb' is over.

The initial object of love/hate – the primary caregiver mother, is held with ambivalence. Melanie Klein explains carefully in her object relations theory how infants using defense mechanisms to cope with anxieties from seeing objects (initially breasts) as ‘good or bad’. Klein argues for an ‘integrated ego’ – the depressive position that allows for reparation, a necessary effort in human development.

Other relationships

The child eventually comes in contact with other caregivers: the father, other elders and siblings, and the teacher. Back in the days and the joint family set-up, there was no paucity of mentors and caregivers, and a child had many opportunities to discover the axis of relatedness. There were so many under one roof and relationships with each had a very special quality, based on the relative pecking position of each member, based on an affiliative system that supported status and social hierarchy.

In India, the ‘maternal enthralment’ has more salience than the Oedipus complex. The triangle in the former is the mother, son and daughter-in-law, while in the latter is father, son, mother.

Deep within, the boy child knows, ‘I love mother, but I am not going to be like her, when I grow up’. It does not pay to be ‘momma’s boy’ or ‘sissy boy’ – he discovers very quickly, from his peer set, or early mentors at school. So what does it mean to be like father, he wonders?

Search for a Mentor

Today with large migration of labour, father may be distant either physically or psychologically. Worse, if socially and financially marginalised, he has taken to vice: alcohol or drugs or petty crime. The child is in desperate search for identification with his masculine energy. Who would be his role model? The lament of many has been that ‘my father has sired me, but he does not see me?’. Often the young boy fails to find any other ‘adult’ who is responsible, and who can act as his role model or mentor. In the absence of this he has to discover, ‘ways of thinking, feeling and acting’ from his peer set. As is said, in a kingdom of blind, the one eyed, is superior! Mentorship is not possible from peer set. Peers create tensions to confirm to group behavior: be like us!

No wonder then, any responsible act by any member is frowned by the majority. Young black children in the US were taunted as ‘Being White’ if they demonstrated discipline and commitment to a responsible path of adulthood.

If eventually the youth does find a mentor/teacher, he may end up valuing the fact that this person ‘sees me inside’ but alongside, unconsciously is also a wish, to be ‘fathered’ and to receive ‘love and affection’ perhaps not provided by the biological father. This transference is a reality, and so very often we heap our relationship with a mentor, to be ‘dad’ as well to us. This is worsened if the mentor swallows / introjects this and colludes in doing so.

What mentorship does….

A mentor helps channelize the masculine energies of the youth into creative channels. He is supported to learn discipline and bring in hard work and perseverance. A vision of the future which is compelling, and an ethical sense to distinguish right from wrong. In this there is character building and values.

In the absence of responsible mentoring the young person is left with few role models. On one hand he witnesses first-hand the excesses of an irresponsible father, who frustrated with his own life circumstances, drinks himself to a stupor, beats his wife or children, or who leaves home, with even more ‘irresponsible acts’ in mind. Instead of a mentor, the child is left with a truncated childhood, forced to hold anxieties on behalf of other adult members of the family. A child instead of seeing two loving adults ‘respect and love’ each other witness instead abuse, and havoc, even wondering at an unconscious level, ‘I wonder if I may have caused this?’ In financially weak homes, the child has to even discontinue education, resort to child labour, or early employment, in order to support the family.

It seems to me, that the privilege of man is just simply by birth. There is really no need to work for it. His ‘rights’(patriarchy) are enforced by violence if need be, and by a social system that allows for social hierarchy.

So back to mentorship….

What kind of mentors have we had during our childhood and youthful stage? How has the picture of relatedness with them influenced the way we act as mentors? How has the social context enabled or destabilised mentoring? Does the quality of 'menteeship' determine the overall quality of the mentor?

To me, then, the role of a mentor is to help support and channelise the energies of the youthful self to that point, when it is time for him to take responsibility and guide and mentor others. What do you think?

What feedback has taught me about the other

Add caption

Being an Executive Coach, I use a lot of feedback to help Client discover facets of herself: feedback is received from Peers, Family, her manager, a wider network and direct reports. In addition, I have used psychometric tools, my favourite being Hogan and EUM.

Is feedback about the Client only?

Every frame of reference is from within. In the ultimate analysis, our brains are wired for that which rewards or that which punishes: the pleasure seeking impulse drives our action (See David Rock’s work). Buddha asked us to observe our own thoughts: that which we found ourselves ‘attracted to’ or those we were ‘repulsed’ from. In short, liking or disliking is fundamental to our nature. True bliss lies in equanimity.

If then every frame of reference is personal to the observer, then as J. Krishnamurthy, avers, the observer is the observed itself. We describe others with filters, around lenses we ‘like’ or ‘dislike’. Someone would appear confident or cocky, someone slow and deliberate, while others may view this as tentative and unsure. There is no ultimate reality: only facets of that reality.

Through years of receiving feedback or working with people giving feedback I have learnt, that when one gives feedback to another, one is also providing feedback on the feedback giver itself. It points out to his/ her valuation process. What is it that the feedback values most: in its presence and in its absence.

Reflect back on feedback you received from your boss for instance or a critical stakeholder. Do you recognise that much of the feedback is from his/her lens of what is important for them to see more of/less of. We all have a perceptual canvas, from which we see. Or when you provide feedback to your direct report are you not sharing what matters to you most. Don’t get me wrong: the feedback is about YOU, but it does reveal the interface that would now be required to improve the quality of engagement. Once you recognise this phenomena, you will be able to understand people much better around you. And to cater to their specific needs to improve that engagement.

Feedback is then more about knowing others, rather than just knowing about you. In every comment, there is the said, then the unsaid, and the edited. Are you aware of all three? To every question you are asked, the questioner has already a favoured answer: are you aware of what that is.

Feedback is from expectation from the other: either met or unmet. Expectations always fall short. As long as there is expectation disappointment will follow. As truly, as how Sunrise follows Sunset. Feedback comes from a notion, a phantasy, an imagined. It is only with acceptance that expectations drop. Feedback is about, what is it, that I want to see as an image that I agree with, expect. And from you. Drop expectation, Accept.

Right from birth, we have received feedback, most of it, non-verbally. From the way we were picked up at birth, held, offered gifts and responded to. We unconsciously picked these cues and adhered. What we are, seemed not to matter: what mattered is what was acceptable in us. That lesson we learnt quickly and since then we have adapted. And we have been adapting ever since.

We have learnt to distrust: the advice, ‘Be Yourself.’ Instead, we have created a persona: a special mask for each occasion. Think about this the next time you receive or give feedback: Who is it about?

Does this resonate with your own experience? Do comment, even with a few words.

Leadership Hubris

Hubris (in Greek tragedy) refers to excessive pride or defiance of the Gods leading to nemesis. This fatal flaw, or an error in action (Hamartia) leads to the downfall of the protagonist. For example, Oedipus’s Hamartia is pride, hastiness and anger leading him to make unfortunate misjudgements. For Macbeth, it was his pride and greed. For Richard II, it is his irresoluteness, unwillingness to confront the changing situations. For King Lear it is his inability to strike a balance between his volatile temperament and arrogance. Hamlet’s faltering judgment and Othello’s jealousy. This Hamartia is built into the Hero’s character, even as he has many virtues.  The right type of the tragic hero, according to Aristotle, exists between these extremes, a person who is neither perfect in virtue and justice, nor one who falls into misfortune through vice and depravity, but by some error or frailty (Hamartia) Unlike, a villainous person, his downfall, does not arouse either pity or fear. Hamartia in its broadened context include: Chance, accident, circumstances, and the craftiness of others. Hamartia is not just a flaw in character; but an entire gamut of tragic happenings.

On one hand there are several instances of corporate scams and shenanigans that have led to the downfall of many Corporate Leaders, some who have  served time in prison, and some under who investigation is in progress. Some have fled the country to escape retribution. They hardly arouse pity or fear, although at one point they led ‘king size’ lives, were celebrities and walked proudly in the corridors of power.

In Indian tradition, the role of a leader is to be a Rajshri, a combination of king and a Rishi. When he serves his duty zealously, but forgets to be inclusive and all embracing, he is potentially, exposing his personal Hamartia, with hubris bound to follow leading to nemesis.

I will stop here. Are you able to spot Corporate leaders with Hamartia?

Why the Study of Humans is different?

I have spent over 30 years in the field of HR and involved with Human Process workshops over 20 years. Herein are my reflections on distinctive nature of the function and extended to humans in general.



Unlike most functions, HR does not have a unified coded theory that allows guidance to what one needs to do when influencing and impacting people. It borrows eclectically from many fields: Psychology, Sociology and also from sciences: Maths, Finance (black scholes for ESOP’s) Industrial Engineering, Neuroscience (incentives for manufacturing), etc. It does have a set of rules around compensation benchmarking, and principles around OD designs and learning interventions, but at broad principle levels only.

Not that I am saying, this is a setback. Not at all. It is for this reason that it is fascinating.

Unlike Science which is causal and can be verified by experiments, people practice is different: it is an Art, in service of Business and a Craft – one needs to learn the ABC’s.If you read, 7-8 chapters of any text book, the subsequent chapters become easier. That’s because once a good foundation has been established, subsequent chapters become easier to follow and relate to.

In HR, or to be more broader, in the study of human process, subsequent studies gets even more complex, more astounding, even bewildering at times. In behavioural science as you go deeper, newer insights emerge. I am amused when some amateur Leader remarks, “people are simple: either this or that, or to be seen, by this X axis and that Y axis, as if one or other quadrant make up the entire world. Even worriedly, when someone says, ‘I am an ENTJ (MBTI Type) and he is and ISFP, etc. Interestingly, some even use MBTI as a basis to hire people, the ultimate abomination of ignorance.

Models are akin to maps. The map is not the territory. The maps can be a mere sketch or highly detailed, and as you go deeper, the embellishment is awesome in what unfolds, as if every texture, tone, dimension and element unfold to the keen eye. Almost like Dhyana (full concentration) and Dharana (contemplation) when they come together provides for a wider perspective. In a highly structured analytical world, demand is placed on causality: do this, and the expected phenomena is observed. Every effect has a cause. Not so with human beings, who do not respond to causality. Science is great for interrogation of the material world, but not for the inner world of discovery.

Human behaviour is a function F (I, C), where behaviour is a function of the identity and Self in the location or role. The interaction of these four create multiple forces that enable creative forces, or which leads to mortgage. Identity and its movement, through ‘being and becoming’ is the play of the private self and the public self, while location and roles offers resonance and dissonance and often normativeness around role taking, prescribed by self (thru self injunctions) or by community (a kind of Social Mirror).

As a result no two individuals feel alike, think or act alike. Yet, at the gestalt of all evocations, one sees an array of similar emotions: love, disgust, joy, but the tone, notes, and context, and intensity varies. For example, a woman who discovers her husband is having an affair may not necessarily respond with the expected “ feeling betrayed”, as a large segment would obviously do. A plethora of possible responses can also exist:
Good for him, off my back.
I’ll do the same and get my revenge
That poor thing (referring to the new girlfriend)
I could not care. I like the comfort I am in, so it’s cool

And so on….

The point is, there is no causality: were it so, it would be a science. It would be predictable, made repeatable and lend itself to correlates of validity and reliability quantification.

Another interesting dimension of the world of Human Process study is that learning happens when the events happen: there is no prefix or suffix. The prefix or preface does not accurately reflect the phenomena ahead, nor can the suffix, be the real experience of the event. At best it would be a ‘remembered memory’ not the ‘experienced memory’. Daniel Kahneman, writes quite a bit on this for those interested. All we can recall is the remembered memory, and not the actual experience itself.

Learning takes place within the gestalt of the phenomena. The micro, macro and alter ego looms largely and ever present, exorcising its will over the event. This is the psychodrama, often exaggerated by the ‘shadow’ of the protagonist.

At a phenomenological level multiple substratum’s emerge: initially defined as a problem (eg ‘I am stressed’), seen at the interpersonal level “I have a problem with my boss’), then reflectively, emerges the intra-personal level of self-introjects (‘I can see a pattern of my behaviour as to how I respond to authority’), introjections , splits and projection, of transference and counter transference.

At a intra psychic level (both a sum of personal and collective unconscious), one comes to gain insight of one’s own perceptual filters, and sees the canvas in quite a different way: the observed is the observer himself. Else, there is no observation.

Even deeper is the intra-existential level, the Atmic self; the ‘Brahmi Sthithi’, the true intelligence of the self that sees beyond the absorptive nature of the senses, that is beyond attachment, desire, anger, bewilderment and ignorance and wherein misery awakens. (refer Bhagwad Gita for more on this). Thus, there are multiple depths of exploration.

No two individuals are alike: there is no comparison possible: no better or worse. Each is unique, so how do you compare two unique things – on what parameters? The choice of the criteria’s itself is subjective bias: that is the fallacy. Yet we are always comparing, contrasting, role modelling, aligning with….

No wonder Socrates said, ALL I KNOW IS THAT I KNOW NOTHING.

Please join in and Comment