Issues and Results

Finally the verdict came which was long awaited. Though it is early to comment on the final settlement but one thing got noticed is the change in paradigm in context of thinking of people of India.

Everyone including government prepared for the worst. The people in their forties and above were skeptical since they carry the marks of old wounds. They knew what will happen if pain starts rooting again. So majority of them showed the unwillingness to take either sides. Whereas the younger generation has grown up with fresh minds who were virtually cut off from the past realities. All they want is to develop their own world with their own bricks. They know old bricks do not have strength which is required to face challenges of new world.  So they preferred the gray area. When everyone was just waiting for time to go and resume the daily life as usual, I think that was the moment we entered into the new era of civilization. 

Peace is the result of wars of all times. We all had our share of fight. We gained we lost. But the need to develop and built was greatly felt among the people. Yesterday's per-verdict and post verdict reactions were the indication of beginning of the NEW.

When resources are few, the rule of existence says that "Start with equal divisions, protect the each pie and exist, otherwise there is higher probability of disappearance". Now one should not go into the deep of this newly formed law and break their heads by giving proofs of gone era. This is not the end of all issues. Issues would come but the treatment to them needs to be focused considering the development of the society as a whole. It is better to maintain the now chosen path. Though this is less traveled but at least somehow someone had to start. That start has started and it is required to maintain the harmony and respect for the PEACE. 

Well at least Commonwealth Games can go with game spirit...That is another issue...rather a headache for the OC now. India....Jai Ho..

Mapping for Negotiations

It’s been some time since i started dealing with people on professional level. Now days are not like as they used to be. There are greater responsibilities and equally great rewards as well. But it won't come unless you prove yourself better in discussions. As you come to close to people you start mapping their profiles. If correct then it is a great benefit for you to make the necessary rather essential preparations before you approach to the situation. 

Here I am talking about the Experimental Psychology. Though I don't carry it on personal levels but still somewhere knowingly unknowingly it is being used. The moment you show a stimulus and understand respondents reply to it, it enhances your understanding which in turn helps to build the memory database. This in particular helps when you are in negotiation with other party, be it client or business partner. The mapping helps you to prepare yourself before any round of discussion. Although everyone is equally prepared but you are satisfied that you have left no stone unturned. Mapping defines your strategy which in turn results in to a plan.

So I can infer that it’s always better to allow other person to talk more and in mean time you better observe the subject. Let it enjoy the freedom of speech and allow you to map him. After some time when ball comes to your court, play it wisely. After all you have waited and listened to opponent for long.

What Others will Say??

“What others will say?” is the common question whenever we try to achieve our desires. The desire can be anything like freedom of expression or any decision and actions made. You do anything and you will be asked this question at least by one of the members of your comfort zone. There we curse the society by thinking what the matter with them is. Why others don’t mind their own business? Let me do things on my own! But these thoughts remain in our minds only and the game of persuasion begins.

But why we need to think about others? In fact why are we forced to think about others? I guess the answer lies in relativity concept. Whatever human does, it takes someone as a reference. Then we measure the relative difference and then decide what is right and wrong. This relative difference comes from the society. Now those who are careless about this distance are called as individualistic and those who care are called social animals. Though we are an individual and live in democratic society, we are the part of the society. Also it depends upon the individuals as well. Here I divide people into two groups, one consists of those who perceive society and individuals are mutually exclusive and other group consists of people who think individualism is part of their society. Now the above mentioned question will not be asked to everyone, it will be asked to those who are not ready to follow the traditional path. Now change seekers are present in both groups but this question is asked mainly to the people from first group.

Change seekers from first group are labelled as rebellious. They have ideas, mechanism to implement those ideas, courage and sources. Individualism is acceptable in capitalistic countries but in Asian countries this mutually exclusive concept is not appreciated. So these people have to concentrate on their convincing power. If they are able to convince then their rebellion will be well accepted. But change seekers from the second group are smart guys. They are labelled as revolutionaries. They have convincing ability because they realise the interdependence of individualism and their society. Before they put forward their revolutionary idea, they are smart enough to dilute the environment by making others mentally prepared for shocking revelations. So whenever they do such things there is less probability that they have to face the society.

Change is the essential element of life and any structure. But how to introduce that is an art, be it small or large change. Even if you are in capitalistic society, you have a small comfort zone of people for whom you have to make necessary adjustments. It is true that every time no one can satisfy every expectation but go for minimal damage. Because we can not remain isolated from the society in which we live our daily life.

CEO’ public opinion

Yesterday I read an article which posed a question- What CEO should speak publicly?

CEO not only is a manager but a leader of its organisation. Whatever it speaks can influence all stakeholders of the business. Sometimes investors’ decision is based on the CEO’s public statements. Therefore it is always expected from them to articulate their statements which will have positive impact on organisations image. Can CEO speak their mind?

CEOs can speak their mind but they always have to keep in mind about their business activities. Every human has personal views towards many issues and especially business environment. Being a leader, a CEO should always think about betterment of its stakeholders. His or her small statement can become an issue. But when it comes to give personal opinion on any issue they have to articulate their statement so it becomes more balanced opinion. Then what about their freedom of expression? They can do that with their modus operandi of business. They should implement those strategies in business and corporate social initiatives which will differentiate themselves from others. Then their work speaks more about them rather than their statements. They have the choice to showcase their talent in their work but when it comes to the public address, majority of them follow traditional methods.

Can CEO eat Vadapav in public?? Of course not, it has to eat burger even in recession time and might remain hungry if quarterly growth is negative but no Vadapav under any circumstances.

The Discrimination

Few days back, we had a debate on the issue of discrimination in Indian society. Few of us were arguing that ours is the society which discriminates people on the basis of their casts. We are living in such a society where we are not ready to award same social status to our fellow citizens. Argument went forward and our society was compared with developed western societies. Here arose the real problem. All of us were aware about loopholes in our social behaviour but when we were compared with western developed countries, there took place another big debate about the supremacy of the traditions in various societies.

No doubt cast based discrimination is still dominant in India but that does not mean only Indians are discriminators. It takes place everywhere. Now one thought came out that westerns discrimination is based on abrasion and not on casts.

For me, discrimination in either of the forms is fatal to any society. It is not about the Indian or other civilizations but its about the basic human nature. People like to differentiate themselves from others irrespective of their geographical locations. Rather I would say they like to find commonality among each other. Indian civilization is the oldest among other societies. Cast based discrimination became dominant hundreds of years before. The Indians found the caste as the common factor among themselves and various Varnas came into existence. Initially these Varnas defined the day to day job responsibilities of individuals belonging to their Varnas. Later on when time changed these Varnas started creating major problems in Indian society. Same is the case with westerns. They found skin colour as the common factor among themselves. So they became racist. After macro differentiation people will go to the micro level e.g. nations, states, cities, behaviours, languages etc. More or less each human has contributed in this discrimination with above mentioned parameters. So it doesn’t make any sense to term Indians as only discriminators in the world.

This is the social problem and everybody is aware about that. We have mastered the art of problem findings but we are poor in solving them. If we can’t work on solutions then it would be better to avoid creating other problems.