By Shylashri Shankar
The riots by fans mourning the death of Kannada movie star Rajkumar in Bangalore left several dead and cost technology firms over $160 million in lost revenue. Bangalore, touted as the Silicon Valley of India, houses important software companies like Microsoft, IBM, Infosys and Wipro. To outsiders, the violent reaction to the death of a film icon is puzzling.
Violence raises important questions as to who benefited from IT boom and outsourcing. Have Karnataka locals reaped the rewards of transfer of jobs from the West? The riots demonstrate two sets of divisions: between the haves, who tend to be outsiders, and have-nots, who tend to be locals; and between rural Karnataka and urban Bangalore.
In early 1990s Bangalore transformed, almost overnight, from a sleepy provincial capital into a hub for global IT industries. Low wages, English speaking skills and competence in low level computer design, programming and maintenance beckoned American companies to set up business process outsourcing also known as call centers. Today, Bangalore accounts for a third of India's total software exports and jobs (265,000 workers) in IT sector.
However, the success created social inequality between rich and poor, and town and country. Local urban and rural Kannadigas (inhabitants of Karnataka) did not benefit from the boom. As Solomon Benjamin points out in his study of poverty in Bangalore, the software expansion masked the shrinking of the public sector, manufacturing and agriculture in the state.
In 2001, the IT industry created 75,000 jobs for professionals but simultaneously more than 100,000 workers in engineering and ancillary units lost their jobs in Bangalore. Even in call centers, the difficulty of neutralizing south Indian accents meant that more jobs went to outsiders.
Bangalore is split between glitzy malls, sprawling high-tech campuses and residential enclaves catering to a thin strata of the super rich in contrast to dense slums (numbering between the official 400 and unofficial figures of 1,000), housing a third of the population.
Some activist groups estimate the total number of poor in Bangalore to be at least 40% of the 6 million residents. Almost a third of the population has little or no access to piped water or to low cost housing - since the government has not planned any. Contrast this with the announcement that the government was planning to give 3,000 acres gratis to the software industry.
"Locals are not getting their share of the development process. MNCs are using our electricity, water and land and giving jobs to outsiders," said noted Kannada writer U.R. Ananthamurthy in a newspaper interview. As another historian Ramachandra Guha points out, whoever is succeeding is an outsider. Azim Premji of Wipro and Kiran Mazumdar Shaw are non-Kannadigas.
In rural areas, an agrarian crisis exploded, caused by the import of cheap edible oil that impacted groundnut farmers and cheap cotton from USA, hurting cotton growers. There was also a drought. By 2004, unable to pay their debts, over 12,000 farmers in Karnataka committed suicide. The per capita income of rural Karnataka is only $650, half of Bangalore's. Thus Karnataka locals face the same problems as their American counterparts - lack of jobs.
What caused these problems? Neglect by politicians is a key factor. The software revolution happened so quickly that the governments failed to plan adequately in terms of the skill levels and infrastructure required to sustain the expansion. This is reflected in the decrepit airport, high pollution levels, narrow roads choked with ever increasing numbers of cars and three wheelers, and increasing water and electricity shortages.
From the airport, one has to travel at a snail's pace on potholed roads past half constructed abandoned flyovers to the hotel room, which costs over $400 per night, that is, if one can get a room at all.
Local resentment has taken different forms such as linguistic nationalism of the middle class, riots by the poor, and a 'sons of the soil' rural movement championed by the party heading the current state government.
In December 2005, Bangalore changed its name to "Bengaluru". A "Karnataka for Kannadigas" movement, Karunada Sene, emerged in March 2006, with demands that Kannada should be spoken in public places, that call centers stop giving Anglicized names to their staff and locals be given preference in jobs. The man who inaugurated the movement was Rajkumar, the star whose death sparked the riots.
In the last state elections, locals rejected a politician who was the face of the IT industry, for H.D. Deve Gowda, a former prime minister who called himself a son of the soil. However, the current chief minister, who is Deve Gowda's son, has continued in the tradition of doing little to remedy the ills. If Bangalore wants to remain a leader of the knowledge revolution, the politicians had better wake up and redress grievances. Otherwise Bangalore may find itself trapped in an increasing spiral of riots.
(Author is a research fellow at Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi)
Monday, April 24, 2006
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Lifting the Curse of Untouchability: Buddha to Ambedkar
By Ken and Visakha Kawasaki
India is the world's largest democracy, but more than half a century after independence, its entrenched caste system aggravates persistent economic troubles and makes a travesty of the ideals of justice and equality.
What are the origins of the caste system? Nearly a thousand years before Buddha's birth, nomads speaking an early form of Sanskrit entered the Indian subcontinent from the north-west, probably through what is now Afghanistan, slowly spreading down through the Punjab into north-central India. They settled into villages and merged with the local population
In this caste-bound society, there were some homeless dropouts called samanas who played little or no part in the economy as either producers or consumers. They devoted themselves to the search for religious truth, but they did not follow the prevailing religious orthodoxy, the Brahminical religion based on the Vedas. They were highly individualistic and engaged in a variety of practices. Most samanas were celibate wanderers, without families or other social ties. They could travel freely even from kingdom to kingdom. Being respected by all levels of society, they were given food and hospitality. Some were teachers, arguing their philosophies of materialism, nihilism, determinism, and eternalism. Listening to such debates was actually a popular form of entertainment. Many samanas sought to develop psychic powers. Some were naked and unbathed, others wore loin clothes and bathed 3 times daily. Some followed bizarre rules and practices.
From these forest wanderers came new strains of mysticism as well as the organized religions of Buddhism and Jainism. The culture wars of the first millennium B.C. set the Brahminical tradition against the samanic one. The samanic faiths were almost as pluralistic as today, but what they had in common was their refusal to accept the authority of the Vedas and the Brahmins. Buddhism became the most influential of these samanic religions. Prince Siddharttha, who later became Buddha, was born into the ksatriya caste.
Buddhist literature provides us with a major source of information about Brahminism and Buddha himself frequently ridiculed the Brahmins as greedy to consume the animals, including cows, they slaughtered in their sacrifices.
Buddha was no mere reformer of Brahminism as some claim. He lived, taught, and died as a non-Vedic and non-Brahminical religious teacher. Nowhere did he ever acknowledge any indebtedness to the existing religious beliefs and practices. Buddha considered himself as initiating a rational religious method, as opening a new path. He was frequently condemned, criticized, and insulted by noted teachers and sects of the Vedic-Brahminic tradition.
Buddha turned Brahminism on its head. In the Upanisads, karma or action, was dependent upon ritual, caste and status and its quality was dependent upon context. What was right for a person of one caste to do could very easily be wrong for a person of another caste. Buddha declared kamma (the term in Pali) to be purely an ethical matter of thought, word, or deed. According to him, the quality of any action, good or bad, virtuous or evil, depended upon the intention behind it. Kamma was the same for all, regardless of who did it. Buddha taught that one was not noble by birth, but by one's thought, word, and deed. Noble intentions led to noble speech and actions, and nobility made one a Brahmin, regardless of parentage.
The society of these settlers was stratified into hereditary status groups for whom it was usually taboo to inter-marry (inter-caste marriage). Within these groups, or castes, each man had a place in society and a function to fulfill, with its own duties and rights. The duty of the Brahmin was to teach and sacrifice. The duty of the Ksatriya was to protect the people. The duty of the Vyshya was to breed cattle, to farm, trade and lend money. The importance of duty in this society can be seen in the epigram, "It is better to do one's own duty badly than another's well," which was later elaborated in the Bhagavad Gita. The duty of the Sudra, or untouchable, was only to serve the 3 higher castes. Sudras had to eat the remnants of their master's food and to wear his cast-off clothing. Sudras could be expelled or slain at will. A Brahmin killing a Sudra performed the same penance as for killing a dog or a cat. Sudras were not allowed to hear or to repeat the Vedic scriptures. One sub-group of untouchables was the Candala. Candalas were not allowed to live in an Aryan village, but had to dwell in special quarters outside the boundaries. Their main task was the carrying and cremation of corpses. They also served as executioners of criminals. Candalas were required to dress in garments of corpses they had cremated, to eat their food from broken vessels, and to wear only iron ornaments. No man of higher castes might have any but the most distant relations with a Candala on pain of losing his religious purity and falling to the Candala's level.
According to Brahmins, Brahma, the creator-god, had sacrificed himself, and it was his sacrifice that sustained the cosmos. Brahmins claimed to be "gods on earth" and appropriated for themselves the right to officiate in the sacrificial cult they brought with them. Brahmins practiced domestic rituals for themselves, but they also served the ruling caste by performing public rituals.
Buddha denied all authority to the Brahmins and their scriptures. Brahminical rites-indeed, all rites and rituals-were useless and pointless. Buddha condemned animal sacrifices, preaching the doctrine of ahimsa, non-violence, which, because of its association with Mahatma Gandhi, has often been mistaken for a Hindu principle.
Buddha refuted the idea of an omnipotent creator-god by demonstrating that the universe develops according to laws of causation. He denied the existence of a cosmic soul, further demonstrating that man has neither soul nor enduring self. Buddha never used Sanskrit, the language of the Brahmins, but taught in the vernacular Magadhi, which was later arranged into Pali. The Sangha was open to all, both men and women, regardless of caste. Although members of the untouchable castes were often forbidden entry into Brahmin temples, Buddhist monks taught them freely and ordained those who wished to enter the Sangha, where members were ranked only by seniority. In a number of Jatakas, Buddha described previous births when he had been born as a Candala.
For close to a millennium, Buddhism and Hinduism, the latter an organized form of Brahminism, were the main contenders in the cultural and social life of the subcontinent. Buddhism spread and became a worldwide religion, but, after a series of catastrophic Muslim invasions and conquests, Hinduism emerged supreme within India. The caste system survived and became even more rigid over the centuries.
When the Untouchable movement began in the 19th century, some militants rejected their identity as Hindus and saw an alternative in Buddhism. Pandit Iyothee Thass, a Tamil, argued that Tamils were originally Buddhists. Brahmananda Reddy organized a small Buddhist movement in Andhra Pradesh. There were also several brilliant upper caste intellectuals, such as Dharmananda Kosambi, who identified themselves with Buddhism.
During the struggle for Indian Independence, two leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, claimed to be the champion of the Untouchables. Mahatma Gandhi called them 'Harijan', a preposterous euphemism which means "Children of God". Gandhi espoused the need for guaranteeing certain rights to the Untouchables.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was born in 1891 into the untouchable Mahar caste of Maharashtra. At a time when less than 1% of his caste was literate, Dr. Ambedkar obtained a Ph.D. from Columbia University in New York and a D.Sc. from the University of London. He coined the term 'Dalit' or "broken people" which is now in common parlance. His earliest efforts involved establishing a Dalit movement in Maharashtra by founding newspapers, holding conferences, forming political parties, and opening colleges to promote the education and welfare of Dalits. In the 1930s, as a delegate at London Roundtable Conferences, he argued that Dalits were a minority entitled to their own electorate. He also led campaigns for religious rights for Dalits, including lifting prohibitions on allowing Dalits to enter Hindu temples. He was named the Minister for Law in first Nehru cabinet in independent India and served as chairman of the drafting committee for the Constitution.
Untouchability was abolished under India's Constitution in 1950, and certain rights and quotas are reserved for the "scheduled classes," mainly due to the efforts of Dr. Ambedkar. This has not in any way, however, led to the elimination of discrimination of Untouchables. The practice remains very much a part of rural India. Newspaper accounts of attacks on Untouchables are commonplace.
Dr. Ambedkar believed that Hinduism itself, because it was so tightly identified with the caste system, was the major cause of oppression. Gandhi, on the other hand, sought to improve the lot of Untouchables within the framework of Hinduism. In debates with Gandhi in the 1930s, Dr. Ambedkar put forth the challenge that if all Hindu scriptures that supported caste were thoroughly renounced, he could continue to call himself a Hindu. If they were left in place, then he could not. He saw the need for a religion that would provide the spiritual and moral basis for equality as an integral part of these struggles.
In 1935, Dr. Ambedkar made the bold pronouncement, "I was born a Hindu, and I had no choice about that. But I will not die a Hindu!" This sent a tremor throughout much of India. For the next 20 years, leaders of other major religions, mainly Muslim and Christian, tried to lure him. During this time, Dr. Ambedkar investigated these other religions to discover which offered Dalits the most advantage and protection.
By 1956, he had reached his decision. On the full-moon day of October in that year, in a public ceremony in Nagpur, he led 500,000 Dalits in taking precepts and accepting Buddhism as their new faith. The precepts were administered by the Arakanese monk, Ven. U Chandramani.
Dr. Ambedkar clearly explained why he preferred Buddhism to all other alternatives. Primarily, he found 3 principles in Buddhism which no other religion offered. Buddhism teaches wisdom, as against superstition and supernaturalism; love and compassion in relations with others; and complete equality. Considering Marxism, Dr. Ambedkar recognized that the communist movement had shaken the religious systems of many countries, but he did not see that it had provided a solution. Not only failing to eliminate poverty, Marxism, he said, used poverty as an excuse for sacrificing human freedom. Dr. Ambedkar said that Buddhism teaches social, intellectual, economic and political freedom--equality not only between man and man but also between man and woman.
Dr. Ambedkar felt it was necessary to preserve Buddhism in India and to protect it from corruption by Hinduism. He exhorted his followers to swear not to regard Vishnu, Shiva, Rama, Krishna, or any of the other Hindu deities as gods nor to worship them. He denounced as malicious propaganda the Hindu claim that Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. Dr. Ambedkar vowed never to perform any Hindu ceremony or to offer food to Brahmins. He promised never to act against the tenets of Buddhism. Following his example, new Buddhists proclaim their belief in the equality of all people.
Since Dr. Ambedkar's renunciation of Hinduism, millions of Dalits have followed suit and taken refuge in Buddhism. According to the 1990 census there were 6.4 million Buddhists in India. 5 million of these were in Maharashtra, the remainder includes traditional Buddhist populations in the hill areas of northeast India and high Himalayan valleys, as well as Tibetan refugees. This was a 35.9% increase since 1981, making Buddhism the 5th largest religious group in the country. New Buddhist communities have experienced significant social changes, including a marked decline in alcoholism, a simplification of marriage ceremonies, the abolition of ruinous marriage expenses, a greater emphasis on education, and a heightened sense of identity and self-worth.
India is the world's largest democracy, but more than half a century after independence, its entrenched caste system aggravates persistent economic troubles and makes a travesty of the ideals of justice and equality.
What are the origins of the caste system? Nearly a thousand years before Buddha's birth, nomads speaking an early form of Sanskrit entered the Indian subcontinent from the north-west, probably through what is now Afghanistan, slowly spreading down through the Punjab into north-central India. They settled into villages and merged with the local population
In this caste-bound society, there were some homeless dropouts called samanas who played little or no part in the economy as either producers or consumers. They devoted themselves to the search for religious truth, but they did not follow the prevailing religious orthodoxy, the Brahminical religion based on the Vedas. They were highly individualistic and engaged in a variety of practices. Most samanas were celibate wanderers, without families or other social ties. They could travel freely even from kingdom to kingdom. Being respected by all levels of society, they were given food and hospitality. Some were teachers, arguing their philosophies of materialism, nihilism, determinism, and eternalism. Listening to such debates was actually a popular form of entertainment. Many samanas sought to develop psychic powers. Some were naked and unbathed, others wore loin clothes and bathed 3 times daily. Some followed bizarre rules and practices.
From these forest wanderers came new strains of mysticism as well as the organized religions of Buddhism and Jainism. The culture wars of the first millennium B.C. set the Brahminical tradition against the samanic one. The samanic faiths were almost as pluralistic as today, but what they had in common was their refusal to accept the authority of the Vedas and the Brahmins. Buddhism became the most influential of these samanic religions. Prince Siddharttha, who later became Buddha, was born into the ksatriya caste.
Buddhist literature provides us with a major source of information about Brahminism and Buddha himself frequently ridiculed the Brahmins as greedy to consume the animals, including cows, they slaughtered in their sacrifices.
Buddha was no mere reformer of Brahminism as some claim. He lived, taught, and died as a non-Vedic and non-Brahminical religious teacher. Nowhere did he ever acknowledge any indebtedness to the existing religious beliefs and practices. Buddha considered himself as initiating a rational religious method, as opening a new path. He was frequently condemned, criticized, and insulted by noted teachers and sects of the Vedic-Brahminic tradition.
Buddha turned Brahminism on its head. In the Upanisads, karma or action, was dependent upon ritual, caste and status and its quality was dependent upon context. What was right for a person of one caste to do could very easily be wrong for a person of another caste. Buddha declared kamma (the term in Pali) to be purely an ethical matter of thought, word, or deed. According to him, the quality of any action, good or bad, virtuous or evil, depended upon the intention behind it. Kamma was the same for all, regardless of who did it. Buddha taught that one was not noble by birth, but by one's thought, word, and deed. Noble intentions led to noble speech and actions, and nobility made one a Brahmin, regardless of parentage.
The society of these settlers was stratified into hereditary status groups for whom it was usually taboo to inter-marry (inter-caste marriage). Within these groups, or castes, each man had a place in society and a function to fulfill, with its own duties and rights. The duty of the Brahmin was to teach and sacrifice. The duty of the Ksatriya was to protect the people. The duty of the Vyshya was to breed cattle, to farm, trade and lend money. The importance of duty in this society can be seen in the epigram, "It is better to do one's own duty badly than another's well," which was later elaborated in the Bhagavad Gita. The duty of the Sudra, or untouchable, was only to serve the 3 higher castes. Sudras had to eat the remnants of their master's food and to wear his cast-off clothing. Sudras could be expelled or slain at will. A Brahmin killing a Sudra performed the same penance as for killing a dog or a cat. Sudras were not allowed to hear or to repeat the Vedic scriptures. One sub-group of untouchables was the Candala. Candalas were not allowed to live in an Aryan village, but had to dwell in special quarters outside the boundaries. Their main task was the carrying and cremation of corpses. They also served as executioners of criminals. Candalas were required to dress in garments of corpses they had cremated, to eat their food from broken vessels, and to wear only iron ornaments. No man of higher castes might have any but the most distant relations with a Candala on pain of losing his religious purity and falling to the Candala's level.
According to Brahmins, Brahma, the creator-god, had sacrificed himself, and it was his sacrifice that sustained the cosmos. Brahmins claimed to be "gods on earth" and appropriated for themselves the right to officiate in the sacrificial cult they brought with them. Brahmins practiced domestic rituals for themselves, but they also served the ruling caste by performing public rituals.
Buddha denied all authority to the Brahmins and their scriptures. Brahminical rites-indeed, all rites and rituals-were useless and pointless. Buddha condemned animal sacrifices, preaching the doctrine of ahimsa, non-violence, which, because of its association with Mahatma Gandhi, has often been mistaken for a Hindu principle.
Buddha refuted the idea of an omnipotent creator-god by demonstrating that the universe develops according to laws of causation. He denied the existence of a cosmic soul, further demonstrating that man has neither soul nor enduring self. Buddha never used Sanskrit, the language of the Brahmins, but taught in the vernacular Magadhi, which was later arranged into Pali. The Sangha was open to all, both men and women, regardless of caste. Although members of the untouchable castes were often forbidden entry into Brahmin temples, Buddhist monks taught them freely and ordained those who wished to enter the Sangha, where members were ranked only by seniority. In a number of Jatakas, Buddha described previous births when he had been born as a Candala.
For close to a millennium, Buddhism and Hinduism, the latter an organized form of Brahminism, were the main contenders in the cultural and social life of the subcontinent. Buddhism spread and became a worldwide religion, but, after a series of catastrophic Muslim invasions and conquests, Hinduism emerged supreme within India. The caste system survived and became even more rigid over the centuries.
When the Untouchable movement began in the 19th century, some militants rejected their identity as Hindus and saw an alternative in Buddhism. Pandit Iyothee Thass, a Tamil, argued that Tamils were originally Buddhists. Brahmananda Reddy organized a small Buddhist movement in Andhra Pradesh. There were also several brilliant upper caste intellectuals, such as Dharmananda Kosambi, who identified themselves with Buddhism.
During the struggle for Indian Independence, two leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, claimed to be the champion of the Untouchables. Mahatma Gandhi called them 'Harijan', a preposterous euphemism which means "Children of God". Gandhi espoused the need for guaranteeing certain rights to the Untouchables.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was born in 1891 into the untouchable Mahar caste of Maharashtra. At a time when less than 1% of his caste was literate, Dr. Ambedkar obtained a Ph.D. from Columbia University in New York and a D.Sc. from the University of London. He coined the term 'Dalit' or "broken people" which is now in common parlance. His earliest efforts involved establishing a Dalit movement in Maharashtra by founding newspapers, holding conferences, forming political parties, and opening colleges to promote the education and welfare of Dalits. In the 1930s, as a delegate at London Roundtable Conferences, he argued that Dalits were a minority entitled to their own electorate. He also led campaigns for religious rights for Dalits, including lifting prohibitions on allowing Dalits to enter Hindu temples. He was named the Minister for Law in first Nehru cabinet in independent India and served as chairman of the drafting committee for the Constitution.
Untouchability was abolished under India's Constitution in 1950, and certain rights and quotas are reserved for the "scheduled classes," mainly due to the efforts of Dr. Ambedkar. This has not in any way, however, led to the elimination of discrimination of Untouchables. The practice remains very much a part of rural India. Newspaper accounts of attacks on Untouchables are commonplace.
Dr. Ambedkar believed that Hinduism itself, because it was so tightly identified with the caste system, was the major cause of oppression. Gandhi, on the other hand, sought to improve the lot of Untouchables within the framework of Hinduism. In debates with Gandhi in the 1930s, Dr. Ambedkar put forth the challenge that if all Hindu scriptures that supported caste were thoroughly renounced, he could continue to call himself a Hindu. If they were left in place, then he could not. He saw the need for a religion that would provide the spiritual and moral basis for equality as an integral part of these struggles.
In 1935, Dr. Ambedkar made the bold pronouncement, "I was born a Hindu, and I had no choice about that. But I will not die a Hindu!" This sent a tremor throughout much of India. For the next 20 years, leaders of other major religions, mainly Muslim and Christian, tried to lure him. During this time, Dr. Ambedkar investigated these other religions to discover which offered Dalits the most advantage and protection.
By 1956, he had reached his decision. On the full-moon day of October in that year, in a public ceremony in Nagpur, he led 500,000 Dalits in taking precepts and accepting Buddhism as their new faith. The precepts were administered by the Arakanese monk, Ven. U Chandramani.
Dr. Ambedkar clearly explained why he preferred Buddhism to all other alternatives. Primarily, he found 3 principles in Buddhism which no other religion offered. Buddhism teaches wisdom, as against superstition and supernaturalism; love and compassion in relations with others; and complete equality. Considering Marxism, Dr. Ambedkar recognized that the communist movement had shaken the religious systems of many countries, but he did not see that it had provided a solution. Not only failing to eliminate poverty, Marxism, he said, used poverty as an excuse for sacrificing human freedom. Dr. Ambedkar said that Buddhism teaches social, intellectual, economic and political freedom--equality not only between man and man but also between man and woman.
Dr. Ambedkar felt it was necessary to preserve Buddhism in India and to protect it from corruption by Hinduism. He exhorted his followers to swear not to regard Vishnu, Shiva, Rama, Krishna, or any of the other Hindu deities as gods nor to worship them. He denounced as malicious propaganda the Hindu claim that Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. Dr. Ambedkar vowed never to perform any Hindu ceremony or to offer food to Brahmins. He promised never to act against the tenets of Buddhism. Following his example, new Buddhists proclaim their belief in the equality of all people.
Since Dr. Ambedkar's renunciation of Hinduism, millions of Dalits have followed suit and taken refuge in Buddhism. According to the 1990 census there were 6.4 million Buddhists in India. 5 million of these were in Maharashtra, the remainder includes traditional Buddhist populations in the hill areas of northeast India and high Himalayan valleys, as well as Tibetan refugees. This was a 35.9% increase since 1981, making Buddhism the 5th largest religious group in the country. New Buddhist communities have experienced significant social changes, including a marked decline in alcoholism, a simplification of marriage ceremonies, the abolition of ruinous marriage expenses, a greater emphasis on education, and a heightened sense of identity and self-worth.
Monday, April 10, 2006
How Do I Get Him Back?
By Christian Carter
It's a question I get all the time from women that points out a common misunderstanding women have about men. Read this letter- "Dear Christian, I'm sorry but I need to ask you a question. I need advice and help. Me and my ex have been together off and on many times, recently we just broke up and now he's dating someone else. But I know he still has very big feelings for me and I want advice and help on getting him back. Even though he's dating someone right now, he still has feelings for me, and I need help on getting him back with me and not with her. Please help!"
Now look some great things are here-- The first important issue is that you're ignoring all the important signs your ex is giving you. Please don't be naive...Wake up! Realize what's going on. If he's dating someone else, you've got to start moving on. He doesn't share your feelings of wanting to back together. If you challenge this idea, you need to recognize that he's not in the right place in his life to share what you want with him. This doesn't mean you should to go out and try to date right now, but you need to take your mind off him. This is hard for a woman when you still have feelings for him.... but you're setting yourself up for all kinds of pain and disappointment. Yeah, I've seen couples get back together like this... but the odds are things don't look good for this old relationship.
The more you can distance yourself from your ex whose dating another woman, the happier you'll be. And I know doing this is tough, but you've got to. You're also making a lot of assumptions about his feelings when you say "he has very big feelings for me" when you know he's dating someone else. Thinking about this only keeps you stuck on him and his feelings. If you listen to the signals your ex is sending you, you'll see that his "feelings" are just his way of holding onto you for his own comfort. He's already dating another woman. That should give you a clear idea of where his mind is at (not focused on getting back with you) and what his "feelings" truly are.
Here's what I want you to do first and foremost....Think about making some decisions for yourself. Right now it sounds like your waiting for him to make all the decisions. Think about what you want to be happy, and remember all the things your ex has done and said to let you know he's not committed to sharing his love with you. If you give him and yourself some space, a funny thing might happen you won't expect. Your ex-boyfriend won't have the comfort of two women who both want his affection. He won't know that you're still there waiting for him - and this will trigger thoughts and actions in him that will ultimately help resolve your situation. Until then....For your own well-being, it's important you let him know he can't keep sharing his intimate feelings with you while he's dating another woman. Here is a rule you need to remember- "Never allow men who have 'someone else' in their life to keep sharing and expressing their feelings for you".
It's wrong on several levels... for you most of all. When a man can have the affection of two women, and he's in a place where he's emotionally non-committed to either, odds are he will try to keep this situation going for as long as possible! Not all men would do this, but men who are "unavailable", as it sounds your ex is, can continue multiple intimate situations at once. You don't want to date a man that's in this place in his life..... and I know because I've been this guy in my past! No amount of talking, experience or reasoning with him can get him to feel the way you want him to feel. You can't change a man's emotional depth and where he's at in his life. "Getting him back" is a bad idea. Rarely does this give you what you think you want. It's a losing battle, and you're going to end up being hurt or upset again as you undoubtedly keep moving farther and farther away from what you ideally want and closer and closer to whatever strange and unhealthy situation he's creating. If you feel like you have to see this through, then be careful. You're going against the odds. Don't be "that girl". And I promise that you'll ruin your chances if you think you can "convince" him to come back to you through shows of affection, appeals to his desires or other "gifts" to bribe him. I've watched this exact thing unfold so many times. It doesn't work! Instead, you should think about the times you've broken up and the times you've seen that he wasn't personally ready for a relationship. Those things are as real as the strong feelings and emotions you feel that keeps you coming back. Use the issues and challenges you had together as a guide or a reminder of what's keeping you two apart now. And once you start doing this, I think you're going to be strangely surprised at what starts to happen for you... Once your guy notices that he doesn't have you waiting around for him like a puppy dog to figure it out, while he's off doing god knows what with other women, there's going to be a big change in his attitude and behavior. It doesn't make "sense", but that's how it works.
Critical Skills of Understanding Men's Signals and Identifying Good Men from 'Unavailable Toads'- You've got to learn to understand and identify "Emotionally Unavailable" men. If a man doesn't know what he wants, he generally doesn't want what he's got. This may sound harsh, but it's the truth of the situation. And even when it isn't completely true, it's a good rule to go by. A good man who is the right person and wants to be with you will find his own way to his "Emotional Truth". If his truth is that he wants to be with you, or not be with you, you have to respect that. But I see women do it all the time. The guy will be sending all kinds of subtle (or even direct) signs that he's not "available" or interested in something "serious", but the woman ignores them and just pays attention to the fact that he likes being with her when they're together. In other words, she substitutes the physical connection, or even the occasional emotional connection, for the real relationship she wants to be in.
When a guy isn't interested in a relationship, and he's doing something like seeing other women, here's what most women start doing that makes things go from bad to worse... They start trying to "fix" things, and "fix" the guy. And then comes the "convincing" behavior, trying to convince the man that they are the right one for him, and that because they have such a great connection, a loving "relationship" is the only right way to go. I know, it sounds bizarre. Why would a man have a great woman and a great connection with her that felt amazing when they were together, and not want a relationship? I'll get to that later...The thing I'm worried about here for you is that in trying to get your guy back, you're making these mistakes that are like "man-repellent". So I'll say it again. You can't convince a man to want to be with you. I don't know the specifics surrounding your off-and-on with the ex, but it speaks volumes. Especially when it's combined with him not "knowing what he wants". This is classic man-speak for "I'm not emotionally available and I'm not ready for a real relationship". When he can't get in touch with his feelings and isn't open to exploring them, it's a text-book case of unavailability. I don't mean that he can't share feelings or some level of intimacy with you....In fact, I'm sure he still likes to connect with you when things are easy-going and he's not feeling "pressure" around you. But your ex sharing his feelings with you can easily confuse you into thinking that he is potentially the right guy and ready for a long term relationship. I'm sure you've seen this since you've been back and forth with him. But when a guy is unavailable, he has a fear of getting deeper into a relationship that he knows he's not ready for. In his own way, he's tried to tell you this several times. Here's what he's saying: Yes, I have "feelings" for you. And no... that doesn't mean I want to be in a relationship with you and be faithful. Take some time to think about the past with your ex, and then compare that to what will honestly make you happy, and what kind of relationship you want in your future. If you're honest about it with yourself, I don't think he'll fit well into that based on his actions and behavior. Put more value on his actions, not his words. Get back to the things that you enjoy, the places you like to go and avoid places or things you used to do or see with your ex. Spend some time with your friends and give yourself the space you deserve. The less you talk about your ex and this situation for now, the better off you'll be. And I think you'll be amazed at the results. First, I think you'll just plain old feel better. But even better than that, you'll be breaking the old connection that you had with your "x". And as counterintuitive as it sounds, breaking out of your old connection is actually the thing that's going to change the situation for you the most and help get you the results you want.
Right now, your convincing him and your wanting him back, even when he's with another woman, is making you come off in all kinds of ways that men just don't respond well to. I know it seems like the best idea to keep trying to stay in touch with him and keep the connection alive. But the truth is that you're just keeping this same old situation alive by pumping your time and attention into it. If instead, you step back and stop chasing him or trying to convince him you're the right woman, you'll have an opportunity to do something that can honestly be attractive to him- You first leave a space that he'll not recognize and not understand, which will first get him thinking about you and then wondering why you aren't acting the way you used to. Men love "new" things and curiosities. Plus, you'll also be able to give him the space he's tried asking you for in his retarded emotionally unavailable "man-speak". Something funny happens when a man gets the space he asked for- If you do it in the right way, he's forced to deal with himself and his own feelings to figure out that all the things he is worried about, afraid of, fearful of "committing to" etc. And being by himself, he'll see that these things are really just in his own mind - and not bad things about you. In other words, he won't keep taking all the old "stuff" from the past that wasn't working and keep identifying it with you. But you've to go know the way to "re-wire" the connection once you've broken the old one. And if you can do this, I guarantee he'll come calling wondering about you.
It's a question I get all the time from women that points out a common misunderstanding women have about men. Read this letter- "Dear Christian, I'm sorry but I need to ask you a question. I need advice and help. Me and my ex have been together off and on many times, recently we just broke up and now he's dating someone else. But I know he still has very big feelings for me and I want advice and help on getting him back. Even though he's dating someone right now, he still has feelings for me, and I need help on getting him back with me and not with her. Please help!"
Now look some great things are here-- The first important issue is that you're ignoring all the important signs your ex is giving you. Please don't be naive...Wake up! Realize what's going on. If he's dating someone else, you've got to start moving on. He doesn't share your feelings of wanting to back together. If you challenge this idea, you need to recognize that he's not in the right place in his life to share what you want with him. This doesn't mean you should to go out and try to date right now, but you need to take your mind off him. This is hard for a woman when you still have feelings for him.... but you're setting yourself up for all kinds of pain and disappointment. Yeah, I've seen couples get back together like this... but the odds are things don't look good for this old relationship.
The more you can distance yourself from your ex whose dating another woman, the happier you'll be. And I know doing this is tough, but you've got to. You're also making a lot of assumptions about his feelings when you say "he has very big feelings for me" when you know he's dating someone else. Thinking about this only keeps you stuck on him and his feelings. If you listen to the signals your ex is sending you, you'll see that his "feelings" are just his way of holding onto you for his own comfort. He's already dating another woman. That should give you a clear idea of where his mind is at (not focused on getting back with you) and what his "feelings" truly are.
Here's what I want you to do first and foremost....Think about making some decisions for yourself. Right now it sounds like your waiting for him to make all the decisions. Think about what you want to be happy, and remember all the things your ex has done and said to let you know he's not committed to sharing his love with you. If you give him and yourself some space, a funny thing might happen you won't expect. Your ex-boyfriend won't have the comfort of two women who both want his affection. He won't know that you're still there waiting for him - and this will trigger thoughts and actions in him that will ultimately help resolve your situation. Until then....For your own well-being, it's important you let him know he can't keep sharing his intimate feelings with you while he's dating another woman. Here is a rule you need to remember- "Never allow men who have 'someone else' in their life to keep sharing and expressing their feelings for you".
It's wrong on several levels... for you most of all. When a man can have the affection of two women, and he's in a place where he's emotionally non-committed to either, odds are he will try to keep this situation going for as long as possible! Not all men would do this, but men who are "unavailable", as it sounds your ex is, can continue multiple intimate situations at once. You don't want to date a man that's in this place in his life..... and I know because I've been this guy in my past! No amount of talking, experience or reasoning with him can get him to feel the way you want him to feel. You can't change a man's emotional depth and where he's at in his life. "Getting him back" is a bad idea. Rarely does this give you what you think you want. It's a losing battle, and you're going to end up being hurt or upset again as you undoubtedly keep moving farther and farther away from what you ideally want and closer and closer to whatever strange and unhealthy situation he's creating. If you feel like you have to see this through, then be careful. You're going against the odds. Don't be "that girl". And I promise that you'll ruin your chances if you think you can "convince" him to come back to you through shows of affection, appeals to his desires or other "gifts" to bribe him. I've watched this exact thing unfold so many times. It doesn't work! Instead, you should think about the times you've broken up and the times you've seen that he wasn't personally ready for a relationship. Those things are as real as the strong feelings and emotions you feel that keeps you coming back. Use the issues and challenges you had together as a guide or a reminder of what's keeping you two apart now. And once you start doing this, I think you're going to be strangely surprised at what starts to happen for you... Once your guy notices that he doesn't have you waiting around for him like a puppy dog to figure it out, while he's off doing god knows what with other women, there's going to be a big change in his attitude and behavior. It doesn't make "sense", but that's how it works.
Critical Skills of Understanding Men's Signals and Identifying Good Men from 'Unavailable Toads'- You've got to learn to understand and identify "Emotionally Unavailable" men. If a man doesn't know what he wants, he generally doesn't want what he's got. This may sound harsh, but it's the truth of the situation. And even when it isn't completely true, it's a good rule to go by. A good man who is the right person and wants to be with you will find his own way to his "Emotional Truth". If his truth is that he wants to be with you, or not be with you, you have to respect that. But I see women do it all the time. The guy will be sending all kinds of subtle (or even direct) signs that he's not "available" or interested in something "serious", but the woman ignores them and just pays attention to the fact that he likes being with her when they're together. In other words, she substitutes the physical connection, or even the occasional emotional connection, for the real relationship she wants to be in.
When a guy isn't interested in a relationship, and he's doing something like seeing other women, here's what most women start doing that makes things go from bad to worse... They start trying to "fix" things, and "fix" the guy. And then comes the "convincing" behavior, trying to convince the man that they are the right one for him, and that because they have such a great connection, a loving "relationship" is the only right way to go. I know, it sounds bizarre. Why would a man have a great woman and a great connection with her that felt amazing when they were together, and not want a relationship? I'll get to that later...The thing I'm worried about here for you is that in trying to get your guy back, you're making these mistakes that are like "man-repellent". So I'll say it again. You can't convince a man to want to be with you. I don't know the specifics surrounding your off-and-on with the ex, but it speaks volumes. Especially when it's combined with him not "knowing what he wants". This is classic man-speak for "I'm not emotionally available and I'm not ready for a real relationship". When he can't get in touch with his feelings and isn't open to exploring them, it's a text-book case of unavailability. I don't mean that he can't share feelings or some level of intimacy with you....In fact, I'm sure he still likes to connect with you when things are easy-going and he's not feeling "pressure" around you. But your ex sharing his feelings with you can easily confuse you into thinking that he is potentially the right guy and ready for a long term relationship. I'm sure you've seen this since you've been back and forth with him. But when a guy is unavailable, he has a fear of getting deeper into a relationship that he knows he's not ready for. In his own way, he's tried to tell you this several times. Here's what he's saying: Yes, I have "feelings" for you. And no... that doesn't mean I want to be in a relationship with you and be faithful. Take some time to think about the past with your ex, and then compare that to what will honestly make you happy, and what kind of relationship you want in your future. If you're honest about it with yourself, I don't think he'll fit well into that based on his actions and behavior. Put more value on his actions, not his words. Get back to the things that you enjoy, the places you like to go and avoid places or things you used to do or see with your ex. Spend some time with your friends and give yourself the space you deserve. The less you talk about your ex and this situation for now, the better off you'll be. And I think you'll be amazed at the results. First, I think you'll just plain old feel better. But even better than that, you'll be breaking the old connection that you had with your "x". And as counterintuitive as it sounds, breaking out of your old connection is actually the thing that's going to change the situation for you the most and help get you the results you want.
Right now, your convincing him and your wanting him back, even when he's with another woman, is making you come off in all kinds of ways that men just don't respond well to. I know it seems like the best idea to keep trying to stay in touch with him and keep the connection alive. But the truth is that you're just keeping this same old situation alive by pumping your time and attention into it. If instead, you step back and stop chasing him or trying to convince him you're the right woman, you'll have an opportunity to do something that can honestly be attractive to him- You first leave a space that he'll not recognize and not understand, which will first get him thinking about you and then wondering why you aren't acting the way you used to. Men love "new" things and curiosities. Plus, you'll also be able to give him the space he's tried asking you for in his retarded emotionally unavailable "man-speak". Something funny happens when a man gets the space he asked for- If you do it in the right way, he's forced to deal with himself and his own feelings to figure out that all the things he is worried about, afraid of, fearful of "committing to" etc. And being by himself, he'll see that these things are really just in his own mind - and not bad things about you. In other words, he won't keep taking all the old "stuff" from the past that wasn't working and keep identifying it with you. But you've to go know the way to "re-wire" the connection once you've broken the old one. And if you can do this, I guarantee he'll come calling wondering about you.
Monday, April 03, 2006
The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness
Seminar By Dr. Stephen R. Covey
* The best way to learn is to teach. Because when one teaches one learns twice.
* When the learner doesn’t learn the teacher doesn’t teach.
* There are 5 reasons why one needs to teach in order to learn:
(a) One learns better when there is a Paradigm shift. And a Paradigm shift takes place when one shifts one’s role. From being a learner one has to become a teacher. When a person is made accountable and has to demonstrate results then the paradigm will shift. To get children to learn better have children consistently teach you (parents) what they are learning. They are now made accountable for teaching you (parents). Let them start with the subjects they are most interested in. When the children become responsible to teach you (parents) then their learning is not dependent on the teacher or the subject. The paradigm shifts. They begin to enjoy learning. They begin to love learning for its own sake. Motivation moves from external to internal. To remain relevant and current, one needs to study, read and ‘turn the TV down’. In order to get the children and members of family to realize what happens to learning and family life etc. with the TV on, one gets hold of the data and facts and shares the same with them and asks them to discuss and decide what to do.
(b) The real key to learning is applying and doing.
(c) It improves one’s ability to listen. Most people haven’t learnt to listen. Most often we listen within our frame of reference. Therefore it becomes a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with other person. When one listens within one’s frame of reference then one engages in ‘transaction’. ‘Transaction’ leads to compromise. However at the empathetic level we listen within the others’ frame of reference. This is when one attains synergy. Synergy requires transformation. Listening means understanding but not necessarily agreeing. Everybody has got a hierarchy of needs. If one sucks the air out of this room and asks people to stay back and listen people will point blank refuse. What air is to the body, feeling understood is to the heart. When one tries to understand the other, what one is saying is ‘I respect you. I see the God within you. I want to understand you and not just be understood by you’. This attitude of wanting to understand the other and make the other feel understood creates an immune system. People gradually experience a confidence of being able to handle any problem if they approach it in this way. In synergy, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Through listening both get transformed. One is humbled and experiences vulnerability. One doesn’t know what is going to happen. It opens up the others’ world to you. When one operates with moral authority then one is operating as an individual like Gandhi or Nelson Mandela. However, this moral authority or behavior based on principles needs to be institutionalized. One has to build these principles into structures, systems and processes. These principles get institutionalized through, for example, the Constitution. Nehru had positional authority while Gandhi had moral authority. While listening it takes a lot of courage and discipline to withhold one’s judgment. Creative energy replaces defensiveness and protectiveness. To practice listening one can use the ‘Indian Talking Stick’ approach. The Indian Talking Stick is a physical object. When one is holding this physical object then one is permitted to talk while the other listens. When one has finished then the stick is passed on to other who first has to state your point of view to your satisfaction before stating his or her point of view. And so on.
(d) It makes change legitimate. The moment you accept my position as being appropriate and acknowledge that you may have been wrong you are making it ok for me to change too.
(e) It builds strong relationships.
* The more one operates from a Principle centered perspective the more one will be given formal authority.
* Moral principles have to be institutionalized through the creation of structures and processes in order to develop sustainability. Otherwise the implementation of these moral principles will be dependent on individuals.
* Purpose and values govern every other decision. Usually everyone is on a different page regarding the purpose and values of an organization or even of one’s family. Everyone is not pointing to True North. It pays to create a Family mission statement. It must come from the bowels of the family. It will help create harmony and focus.
* Research has shown that more time is spent on the urgent and not the important. We need to decide what’s important. And this does not come from arguing. It comes from listening. We live in an urgent culture which has no time for reflection and meditation. “…we’ve become slaves to the tyranny of the urgent.” Charles Hummel.
* One must be careful about bureaucracy replacing creativity.
* No nation is greater than its families. No civilization is stronger than its families. Never put work before family.
* 75% people say 25% of their time is spent in dysfunctional activities. And, 25% people say that more than 50% of their time is spent on dysfunctional activities. Various dysfunctional activities indulged in within organizations are office politics, inter-departmental rivalry, defensive communication, and various hidden agendas operating.
* There is a contradiction in the following facts: Ask anyone if the current people in the organization have more talent and more creativity than their present jobs require and the answer will nearly always be ‘yes’. And ask the people in the jobs whether they are being pressurized to produce more for less and the answer will be ‘yes’. Then why is this happening. Because of archaic accounting principles which treat people as expenses and things or machines as investments and assets. Instead of releasing people we control them.
* Control is behind the jack-ass theory of motivation of carrot (reward) and stick (fear and punishment).
* The sandwich approach to Performance Appraisal can be summed up as consisting of : A top part where the boss gives a pat on the back for any achievements. The middle part is where the boss slips in the knife and twists it a few times by pointing out the areas for improvement and the bottom part consists of a pat to go on improving and get going. When you think about it, a person should evaluate his or her own self. When you have a high-trust culture, helpful systems, and people on the same page, then people are in a far better position to evaluate themselves, particularly if they have 360 degree feedback data from sources around them. Self-evaluation is tougher than anyone else’s evaluation.
* There are 5 economic ages viz. The Hunter/Gatherer, Agrarian, Industrial, Info/Knowledge worker, Wisdom. Knowledge shrinks as Wisdom grows. Wisdom is the “..habit of the active utilization of well-understood principles.” Alfred North Whitehead.
* We are using the principles of the Industrial Age in a Knowledge era. This can be seen from assuming that leadership is a position or that people are expenses or the jack-ass theory of motivation or the sandwich technique of performance appraisal and so on. The Industrial Age operates on the basis of Control while the Knowledge Age operates on the principle of Release and empowerment.
* One manages things but leads people.
* Leadership is communicating people’s worth and potential so clearly that they are inspired to see it themselves.
* Arnold Toynbee summarized the history of civilization as “Nothing fails like success”. In other words, when you have a challenge and the response is equal to the challenge, that’s called success. But once you have a new challenge, the old, once-successful response no longer works. That’s why it’s a failure. We live in a Knowledge Age but operate our organizations in a controlling Industrial Age model. Every new contribution requires a new preparation.
* When everyone is not on the same page regarding goals how can one translate goals into action. There will be an execution Gap.
* Research (Harris Interactive study of 23000 workers, managers and executives) has shown that only a third of employees have a clear understanding of what their companies are trying to achieve. More often than not these goals are not communicated to the front – line in spite of the front line being responsible for creating the bottom line. Only 10% are passionate about the goals showing that there is no ownership. Respondents estimate that 23% of their time is spent on what is urgent but irrelevant. And 66% do not have clearly defined goals. They don’t understand what they have to do to achieve the organization's goals. It usually involves doing things one has not done before.
* The consequences of using an Industrial Age mindset is that one does not understand the fundamental problem. Much of the problem lies in behavior that flows out of an incomplete or deeply flawed paradigm or view of human nature–one that undermines people’s sense of worth and straitjackets their talents and potential. There is a need to be reeducated and have new practices.
* In a highly interdependent world one needs to start with oneself. One can’t put the blame outside of oneself. One has to change oneself from the inside-out.
* Personal Greatness is character and contribution. Primary greatness is equated to character. Secondary greatness is related to Position. Living the Rich and Famous lifestyle and being Celebrity obsessed. This is secondary greatness.
* One needs Principle–Centered Leadership Greatness to inspire others to find their voice and not an understanding of motivation which is embedded in the Industrial Age.
* Supervision is an obsolete concept in the Knowledge Age. One needs an in-depth investment in people and not in bureaucracy.
* A Financial Accounting mind-set drives the old Paradigm.
* Management works in the system. Leadership works on the system. Architects work on the system while the construction workers work in the system.
* One needs to win the personal battle for leadership before one can win the public victory of leadership and inspire others. In order to sustain performance one needs to manage things through structures, systems and processes and lead people through ‘releasing’ them to find their voice and calling.
* If social values are strong then one doesn’t need laws. And if social values are not strong one finds it difficult to enforce laws.
* The Richmond Canada Mountain Police when dealing with the youth resorted to ‘positive ticketing’ rather than ‘negative ticketing’. The children needed a park to cycle and practice their extreme sports. They got the kids involved so that they designed the park and created it. They focused on what’s important. They focused on building relationships. They did not operate from the old paradigm of preventing crime. They created a new paradigm where the police and the public are made to feel jointly responsible for peace and harmony.
* The Grameen Bank in Bangla Desh is an example of how the poorest of the poor are finding their voice.
* Culture has to adapt to a new reality. Through a Force Field analysis release the restraining forces (Cultural and Emotional). By involving people in the problem convert the restraining forces into driving forces. By involving people arrive at the solution.
* How important is our family! All that matters on the death bed is the family.
* One can’t think independently in an interdependent world. This is the principle of peace making.
* Before involvement there is identification. People identified with Gandhi and got involved with the movement.
* To understand one’s purpose and calling and find one’s voice one needs to ask oneself the following questions:
(a) What are you good at? (Talent) - (Mind)
(b) What do you love doing? (Passion) - (Heart)
(c) What need does it serve? (Need) - (Body)
(d) What is life asking of you? (Conscience) - (Spirit)
(e) What should you contribute in this situation? This process constitutes the path to Personal Greatness.
* Always live true to what you feel is right. This brings about a peace of conscience. This is greater than just having peace of mind.
* The boss needs to be a servant leader. Moral authority is upward driven. Position authority is downward driven.
* The characteristic of all leaders is their humility.
* One needs to aim at being a level 5 leader. A level 5 leader according to Jim Collins builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical combination of personal humility plus professional will.
* Empowering shared Mission Statements are produced when there are enough people who are fully informed, interacting freely and synergistically in an environment of high trust.
* Synergy comes out of cultural differences. One must make it culturally acceptable for a person to push back. It takes a lot of security and maturity to allow people to push back. Insecure people gain position power.
* A critical mass is not 60% but rather 10% of the universe who are convinced and committed.
* Only independent people have the choice of becoming interdependent. Dependent people are continuously victimized.
* People’s conscience becomes a leader’s advocate. Nelson Mandela saw that everyone is in some form of jail-the oppressor and the oppressed. So he took it upon himself to liberate both the oppressor and the oppressed. He became the advocate for people’s consciences.
* The culture owns the responsibility for creating the results. In the Mountain Police example the children and the police designed and created the playground which was passed by the Council. In such situations one becomes the servant–leader and the culture owns responsibility for the results.
* In the Santa Fe nuclear submarine people live in a hell hole. As a result they were leaving and joining Silicon Valley. The Commander then got them to continuously train within different simulated scenarios. Their level of empowerment and identification grew and enthusiasm on the job was ever present. The attrition rate was controlled.
* It is better to be humbled by one’s conscience than the force of circumstances. In the nuclear field all information is shared because all the players have been humbled by the circumstances. If anything untoward happens the consequences will be devastating. However, one needs to be humbled by principles.
* For Quantum changes look at changing Paradigms.
* A Trim Tab is a small rudder that turns the big rudder that turns the ship.
* You are not a product of your past. People can make choices. Your past is included in your present but you can make your future.
* Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response. In those choices lie our growth and our happiness.
* Smile about things you can do nothing about.
* New York crime police turned their attention to small problems like graffiti in subways in order to control crime. Keep the little things little. And small things like a trim tab have a big impact. Focus on what you can do and make adjustments.
* Marilyn Cartwright a Principal of a down and out school created a culture of doing what it takes to change the culture of the school by washing the latrines herself in order to rid them of the stink. This story spread and the parents and teachers got involved. Academic achievement improved. Be prepared to work outside one’s job. Identify the need and decide what to do.
* People cannot act with integrity outside their perception. One needs to act with humility to seek to understand rather than be understood.
* The way we are we see the world. It’s not the way it is.
* The more you know the more you know that you don’t know.
* Education is the progressive discovery of our ignorance. As knowledge grows, ignorance grows and humility grows.
* The Principle of synergy is that when the ego is not involved then one will be detached and be able to achieve synergy.
* In the industrial Age, the way I see the world is the way it is. In the Wisdom Age, always listen first.
* People don’t like physical walls like the Berlin Wall. Today, the most challenging walls are between people.
* A good habit is to say to another ‘It’s good that you see it differently. Help me to understand.’
* There are 2 steps to achieving Synergy (3rd Alternatives) viz. By first asking ‘Would you be willing to search for a solution that is better than what either one of you (us) have proposed?’ and then ‘Would you agree to a simple ground rule: No one can make his or her point until they have restated the other person’s point to his or her satisfaction.’
* Every one of us who has found his or her voice possesses the power to rewrite the bad Industrial Age “boss, rules, efficiency, control” software in their organization. The process involves the 4 roles that become the antidote to the four chronic organizational problems. They are the positive manifestations of body, heart, mind and spirit in an organization, whereas the 4 chronic problems are the negative manifestations of neglecting them. One solves these chronic problems in the following manner: Where there is low trust, we focus on modeling (Spirit) trustworthiness to create trust. Where there is no common vision or values we focus on path finding (Mind) to build a common vision and set of values. Where there is misalignment, we focus on aligning (Body) goals, structures, systems and processes to encourage and nurture the empowerment of people and culture to serve the vision and values. Where there is disempowerment, we focus on empowering (Heart) individuals and teams at the project or job level. These are the 4 roles of Leadership Greatness.
* In the Industrial Age there is a production of co-dependent people who want to be controlled and are passive. In this kind of culture one needs the weakness of the other to validate oneself. Even though Russia was freed its people could not handle their freedom. They wanted to be controlled and managed.
* Focus on the wildly important. If you don’t achieve it nothing else matters. Create a compelling scoreboard. Create synergy. Not distracted by the urgent. Translate lofty goals into specific actions.
* Can’t hold people responsible for results if one supervises their methods. We need to hold each other accountable all the time. What are your goals and what are your measures?
* One can’t retire from meaningful work. One may retire from an organization. One needs to live life in crescendo.
* Whole life to be devoted to bless others’ lives for good.
* The challenges given were:
(a) Teach the essence of this program to one’s loved ones and Associates.
(b) Take 4 personal actions: Rebuild one relationship you care a lot about (Modeling); Create a personal mission statement and involve the family in creating one (Path finding); Get anonymous feedback from people you live and work with (Aligning) one finds it difficult to see one’s blind spots; and work out a third alternative. The third alternative is to have a mind-set which searches for a solution that satisfies both parties. A win-win agreement with one person/team/partner (Empowering).
* We are the creative force of our own life.
* The best way to predict the future is to create it.
* Principle Centered Leadership involves Personal Greatness, Leadership Greatness and Organizational Greatness; all of which need the practice of the 8th Habit which is to find one’s voice and inspire others to find theirs.
* The best way to learn is to teach. Because when one teaches one learns twice.
* When the learner doesn’t learn the teacher doesn’t teach.
* There are 5 reasons why one needs to teach in order to learn:
(a) One learns better when there is a Paradigm shift. And a Paradigm shift takes place when one shifts one’s role. From being a learner one has to become a teacher. When a person is made accountable and has to demonstrate results then the paradigm will shift. To get children to learn better have children consistently teach you (parents) what they are learning. They are now made accountable for teaching you (parents). Let them start with the subjects they are most interested in. When the children become responsible to teach you (parents) then their learning is not dependent on the teacher or the subject. The paradigm shifts. They begin to enjoy learning. They begin to love learning for its own sake. Motivation moves from external to internal. To remain relevant and current, one needs to study, read and ‘turn the TV down’. In order to get the children and members of family to realize what happens to learning and family life etc. with the TV on, one gets hold of the data and facts and shares the same with them and asks them to discuss and decide what to do.
(b) The real key to learning is applying and doing.
(c) It improves one’s ability to listen. Most people haven’t learnt to listen. Most often we listen within our frame of reference. Therefore it becomes a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with other person. When one listens within one’s frame of reference then one engages in ‘transaction’. ‘Transaction’ leads to compromise. However at the empathetic level we listen within the others’ frame of reference. This is when one attains synergy. Synergy requires transformation. Listening means understanding but not necessarily agreeing. Everybody has got a hierarchy of needs. If one sucks the air out of this room and asks people to stay back and listen people will point blank refuse. What air is to the body, feeling understood is to the heart. When one tries to understand the other, what one is saying is ‘I respect you. I see the God within you. I want to understand you and not just be understood by you’. This attitude of wanting to understand the other and make the other feel understood creates an immune system. People gradually experience a confidence of being able to handle any problem if they approach it in this way. In synergy, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Through listening both get transformed. One is humbled and experiences vulnerability. One doesn’t know what is going to happen. It opens up the others’ world to you. When one operates with moral authority then one is operating as an individual like Gandhi or Nelson Mandela. However, this moral authority or behavior based on principles needs to be institutionalized. One has to build these principles into structures, systems and processes. These principles get institutionalized through, for example, the Constitution. Nehru had positional authority while Gandhi had moral authority. While listening it takes a lot of courage and discipline to withhold one’s judgment. Creative energy replaces defensiveness and protectiveness. To practice listening one can use the ‘Indian Talking Stick’ approach. The Indian Talking Stick is a physical object. When one is holding this physical object then one is permitted to talk while the other listens. When one has finished then the stick is passed on to other who first has to state your point of view to your satisfaction before stating his or her point of view. And so on.
(d) It makes change legitimate. The moment you accept my position as being appropriate and acknowledge that you may have been wrong you are making it ok for me to change too.
(e) It builds strong relationships.
* The more one operates from a Principle centered perspective the more one will be given formal authority.
* Moral principles have to be institutionalized through the creation of structures and processes in order to develop sustainability. Otherwise the implementation of these moral principles will be dependent on individuals.
* Purpose and values govern every other decision. Usually everyone is on a different page regarding the purpose and values of an organization or even of one’s family. Everyone is not pointing to True North. It pays to create a Family mission statement. It must come from the bowels of the family. It will help create harmony and focus.
* Research has shown that more time is spent on the urgent and not the important. We need to decide what’s important. And this does not come from arguing. It comes from listening. We live in an urgent culture which has no time for reflection and meditation. “…we’ve become slaves to the tyranny of the urgent.” Charles Hummel.
* One must be careful about bureaucracy replacing creativity.
* No nation is greater than its families. No civilization is stronger than its families. Never put work before family.
* 75% people say 25% of their time is spent in dysfunctional activities. And, 25% people say that more than 50% of their time is spent on dysfunctional activities. Various dysfunctional activities indulged in within organizations are office politics, inter-departmental rivalry, defensive communication, and various hidden agendas operating.
* There is a contradiction in the following facts: Ask anyone if the current people in the organization have more talent and more creativity than their present jobs require and the answer will nearly always be ‘yes’. And ask the people in the jobs whether they are being pressurized to produce more for less and the answer will be ‘yes’. Then why is this happening. Because of archaic accounting principles which treat people as expenses and things or machines as investments and assets. Instead of releasing people we control them.
* Control is behind the jack-ass theory of motivation of carrot (reward) and stick (fear and punishment).
* The sandwich approach to Performance Appraisal can be summed up as consisting of : A top part where the boss gives a pat on the back for any achievements. The middle part is where the boss slips in the knife and twists it a few times by pointing out the areas for improvement and the bottom part consists of a pat to go on improving and get going. When you think about it, a person should evaluate his or her own self. When you have a high-trust culture, helpful systems, and people on the same page, then people are in a far better position to evaluate themselves, particularly if they have 360 degree feedback data from sources around them. Self-evaluation is tougher than anyone else’s evaluation.
* There are 5 economic ages viz. The Hunter/Gatherer, Agrarian, Industrial, Info/Knowledge worker, Wisdom. Knowledge shrinks as Wisdom grows. Wisdom is the “..habit of the active utilization of well-understood principles.” Alfred North Whitehead.
* We are using the principles of the Industrial Age in a Knowledge era. This can be seen from assuming that leadership is a position or that people are expenses or the jack-ass theory of motivation or the sandwich technique of performance appraisal and so on. The Industrial Age operates on the basis of Control while the Knowledge Age operates on the principle of Release and empowerment.
* One manages things but leads people.
* Leadership is communicating people’s worth and potential so clearly that they are inspired to see it themselves.
* Arnold Toynbee summarized the history of civilization as “Nothing fails like success”. In other words, when you have a challenge and the response is equal to the challenge, that’s called success. But once you have a new challenge, the old, once-successful response no longer works. That’s why it’s a failure. We live in a Knowledge Age but operate our organizations in a controlling Industrial Age model. Every new contribution requires a new preparation.
* When everyone is not on the same page regarding goals how can one translate goals into action. There will be an execution Gap.
* Research (Harris Interactive study of 23000 workers, managers and executives) has shown that only a third of employees have a clear understanding of what their companies are trying to achieve. More often than not these goals are not communicated to the front – line in spite of the front line being responsible for creating the bottom line. Only 10% are passionate about the goals showing that there is no ownership. Respondents estimate that 23% of their time is spent on what is urgent but irrelevant. And 66% do not have clearly defined goals. They don’t understand what they have to do to achieve the organization's goals. It usually involves doing things one has not done before.
* The consequences of using an Industrial Age mindset is that one does not understand the fundamental problem. Much of the problem lies in behavior that flows out of an incomplete or deeply flawed paradigm or view of human nature–one that undermines people’s sense of worth and straitjackets their talents and potential. There is a need to be reeducated and have new practices.
* In a highly interdependent world one needs to start with oneself. One can’t put the blame outside of oneself. One has to change oneself from the inside-out.
* Personal Greatness is character and contribution. Primary greatness is equated to character. Secondary greatness is related to Position. Living the Rich and Famous lifestyle and being Celebrity obsessed. This is secondary greatness.
* One needs Principle–Centered Leadership Greatness to inspire others to find their voice and not an understanding of motivation which is embedded in the Industrial Age.
* Supervision is an obsolete concept in the Knowledge Age. One needs an in-depth investment in people and not in bureaucracy.
* A Financial Accounting mind-set drives the old Paradigm.
* Management works in the system. Leadership works on the system. Architects work on the system while the construction workers work in the system.
* One needs to win the personal battle for leadership before one can win the public victory of leadership and inspire others. In order to sustain performance one needs to manage things through structures, systems and processes and lead people through ‘releasing’ them to find their voice and calling.
* If social values are strong then one doesn’t need laws. And if social values are not strong one finds it difficult to enforce laws.
* The Richmond Canada Mountain Police when dealing with the youth resorted to ‘positive ticketing’ rather than ‘negative ticketing’. The children needed a park to cycle and practice their extreme sports. They got the kids involved so that they designed the park and created it. They focused on what’s important. They focused on building relationships. They did not operate from the old paradigm of preventing crime. They created a new paradigm where the police and the public are made to feel jointly responsible for peace and harmony.
* The Grameen Bank in Bangla Desh is an example of how the poorest of the poor are finding their voice.
* Culture has to adapt to a new reality. Through a Force Field analysis release the restraining forces (Cultural and Emotional). By involving people in the problem convert the restraining forces into driving forces. By involving people arrive at the solution.
* How important is our family! All that matters on the death bed is the family.
* One can’t think independently in an interdependent world. This is the principle of peace making.
* Before involvement there is identification. People identified with Gandhi and got involved with the movement.
* To understand one’s purpose and calling and find one’s voice one needs to ask oneself the following questions:
(a) What are you good at? (Talent) - (Mind)
(b) What do you love doing? (Passion) - (Heart)
(c) What need does it serve? (Need) - (Body)
(d) What is life asking of you? (Conscience) - (Spirit)
(e) What should you contribute in this situation? This process constitutes the path to Personal Greatness.
* Always live true to what you feel is right. This brings about a peace of conscience. This is greater than just having peace of mind.
* The boss needs to be a servant leader. Moral authority is upward driven. Position authority is downward driven.
* The characteristic of all leaders is their humility.
* One needs to aim at being a level 5 leader. A level 5 leader according to Jim Collins builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical combination of personal humility plus professional will.
* Empowering shared Mission Statements are produced when there are enough people who are fully informed, interacting freely and synergistically in an environment of high trust.
* Synergy comes out of cultural differences. One must make it culturally acceptable for a person to push back. It takes a lot of security and maturity to allow people to push back. Insecure people gain position power.
* A critical mass is not 60% but rather 10% of the universe who are convinced and committed.
* Only independent people have the choice of becoming interdependent. Dependent people are continuously victimized.
* People’s conscience becomes a leader’s advocate. Nelson Mandela saw that everyone is in some form of jail-the oppressor and the oppressed. So he took it upon himself to liberate both the oppressor and the oppressed. He became the advocate for people’s consciences.
* The culture owns the responsibility for creating the results. In the Mountain Police example the children and the police designed and created the playground which was passed by the Council. In such situations one becomes the servant–leader and the culture owns responsibility for the results.
* In the Santa Fe nuclear submarine people live in a hell hole. As a result they were leaving and joining Silicon Valley. The Commander then got them to continuously train within different simulated scenarios. Their level of empowerment and identification grew and enthusiasm on the job was ever present. The attrition rate was controlled.
* It is better to be humbled by one’s conscience than the force of circumstances. In the nuclear field all information is shared because all the players have been humbled by the circumstances. If anything untoward happens the consequences will be devastating. However, one needs to be humbled by principles.
* For Quantum changes look at changing Paradigms.
* A Trim Tab is a small rudder that turns the big rudder that turns the ship.
* You are not a product of your past. People can make choices. Your past is included in your present but you can make your future.
* Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response. In those choices lie our growth and our happiness.
* Smile about things you can do nothing about.
* New York crime police turned their attention to small problems like graffiti in subways in order to control crime. Keep the little things little. And small things like a trim tab have a big impact. Focus on what you can do and make adjustments.
* Marilyn Cartwright a Principal of a down and out school created a culture of doing what it takes to change the culture of the school by washing the latrines herself in order to rid them of the stink. This story spread and the parents and teachers got involved. Academic achievement improved. Be prepared to work outside one’s job. Identify the need and decide what to do.
* People cannot act with integrity outside their perception. One needs to act with humility to seek to understand rather than be understood.
* The way we are we see the world. It’s not the way it is.
* The more you know the more you know that you don’t know.
* Education is the progressive discovery of our ignorance. As knowledge grows, ignorance grows and humility grows.
* The Principle of synergy is that when the ego is not involved then one will be detached and be able to achieve synergy.
* In the industrial Age, the way I see the world is the way it is. In the Wisdom Age, always listen first.
* People don’t like physical walls like the Berlin Wall. Today, the most challenging walls are between people.
* A good habit is to say to another ‘It’s good that you see it differently. Help me to understand.’
* There are 2 steps to achieving Synergy (3rd Alternatives) viz. By first asking ‘Would you be willing to search for a solution that is better than what either one of you (us) have proposed?’ and then ‘Would you agree to a simple ground rule: No one can make his or her point until they have restated the other person’s point to his or her satisfaction.’
* Every one of us who has found his or her voice possesses the power to rewrite the bad Industrial Age “boss, rules, efficiency, control” software in their organization. The process involves the 4 roles that become the antidote to the four chronic organizational problems. They are the positive manifestations of body, heart, mind and spirit in an organization, whereas the 4 chronic problems are the negative manifestations of neglecting them. One solves these chronic problems in the following manner: Where there is low trust, we focus on modeling (Spirit) trustworthiness to create trust. Where there is no common vision or values we focus on path finding (Mind) to build a common vision and set of values. Where there is misalignment, we focus on aligning (Body) goals, structures, systems and processes to encourage and nurture the empowerment of people and culture to serve the vision and values. Where there is disempowerment, we focus on empowering (Heart) individuals and teams at the project or job level. These are the 4 roles of Leadership Greatness.
* In the Industrial Age there is a production of co-dependent people who want to be controlled and are passive. In this kind of culture one needs the weakness of the other to validate oneself. Even though Russia was freed its people could not handle their freedom. They wanted to be controlled and managed.
* Focus on the wildly important. If you don’t achieve it nothing else matters. Create a compelling scoreboard. Create synergy. Not distracted by the urgent. Translate lofty goals into specific actions.
* Can’t hold people responsible for results if one supervises their methods. We need to hold each other accountable all the time. What are your goals and what are your measures?
* One can’t retire from meaningful work. One may retire from an organization. One needs to live life in crescendo.
* Whole life to be devoted to bless others’ lives for good.
* The challenges given were:
(a) Teach the essence of this program to one’s loved ones and Associates.
(b) Take 4 personal actions: Rebuild one relationship you care a lot about (Modeling); Create a personal mission statement and involve the family in creating one (Path finding); Get anonymous feedback from people you live and work with (Aligning) one finds it difficult to see one’s blind spots; and work out a third alternative. The third alternative is to have a mind-set which searches for a solution that satisfies both parties. A win-win agreement with one person/team/partner (Empowering).
* We are the creative force of our own life.
* The best way to predict the future is to create it.
* Principle Centered Leadership involves Personal Greatness, Leadership Greatness and Organizational Greatness; all of which need the practice of the 8th Habit which is to find one’s voice and inspire others to find theirs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)