Identify your strengths: Are you a microscopic or macroscopic visionary?

In life, the proportion of influence in our career matters.

But not in the way that we often perceive it, that is.

Seen from a social perspective in terms of our social status, most of us often perceive the phrase “proportion of influence” in terms of wealth accumulation, fame, size of possession, how high we are working in the hierarchical structures of organisations, how experienced we are in every if not most aspects of our lives, how many (influential) people (read: networks) we know and many more. But the truth is that not all of us will be able to achieve the peaks of most of the abovementioned factors, primarily due to personal circumstances/choice and of course, external factors that are almost always beyond our control. There are individuals in this world who choose not to travel but remain in their hometown enjoying photographs of the world via televisions, radio, newspaper, magazines and the Internet. There are also individuals who choose to work within their current capacity as managers and giving all opportunities for promotion a pass with joy and a sense of acceptance. And yes, there are individuals who choose a life of serenity and thriftiness over a life of riches, fame and glory. In a consumerist society, these individuals are often frowned upon by many as non-achievers and “stagnaters”, the people who settle for less where they could have gotten much more (“if only they have tried”, according to the words of some).

But this is a mistake.

There are opportunities in every aspect of our lives and in all places. It really does not depend on an individual’s personal life choices. It really depends on seizing those opportunities that present themselves when they arrive. What this means is that individuals who choose to live within the confines of their own homes and personal comfort level become what I will call the “microscopic” specialists while those individuals who choose to pursue a wider domain of their lives become what I will consider as the “macroscopic” generalists. Depending on our personalities and character, we will – I will say inadvertently – move in a direction that is usually not of our own choosing. For example, some teachers will not choose to become CEOs and vice versa. This is because the qualities that are required of a teacher are drastically different from that of a CEO. This does not mean – in any way - that the job of a “microscopic” teacher specialising in specific subjects pales in comparison to that of a “macroscopic” CEO, skilled in the handling of numerous tasks of highly-different nature (although some people tend to think so). It’s important to note that while CEOs are often portrayed in the media as leading organisations, we should not forget that in the world, there are many more teachers leading students both within and beyond classrooms. While the former may bask in the glory of the media light, we should also celebrate the latter who are contributing their utmost in nurturing and developing our young silently and diligently. Hence, as long as individuals try their best and put in their best effort in their job/profession, they are already fully utilising the “proportion of influence” as mentioned at the start of this article. The concept of “proportion of influence” should not  be considered in the physical sense but assessed within the boundaries of their professions. For example, the value of a teacher who inspires all his/her students in class should be on par with that of the CEO who inspires an organisation, and not beneath (although in terms of monetary remuneration, the former often commands a lower rate, the reasons of which seems unknown).

I believe that all of us are cut out to be in certain profession. The media may promote certain professions based on monetary remuneration, prestige or even popularity but this does not mean that other professions do not have their values. I feel that some of the most important things to consider when deciding one’s career is identifying if one has a calling to a particular profession (which is usually indicated by the extraneous effort that one puts in when one need not have to. That is, going the extra mile), one’s aptitude in excelling in that profession, one’s strengths and talents in contributing to that profession, the feasibility of sustaining in that profession in the long run and the alignment of one’s life goals to that of the profession’s. As can be observed, most of the things that is considered important in this article do not belong in the same criteria as identified by most mainstream media. This is because the criteria used are drastically different.

The term “microscopic” often carries a connotation of specialisation and working on a solitary basis. Some professions that often fall into this category include photographers, writers, editors and many more. The term “macroscopic” carries with it the connotation of overseeing various departments or aspects of a task and the individuals handling the task is often considered to be more of a generalist, both within the context of the work and their ability to communicate with others. Hence, the latter is often given more prestige by the media and is – more often than not – considered a more “people” person, thereby giving them more power than the former (for some reasons, influential individuals are often considered more powerful, although I never figure out why. Much as we humans are social creatures, I believe that there are some “microscopic” professions which require a strong and in-depth solitary of thoughts, of which designing is one of many). With a bit of psychological insights thrown in, males are considered to be more of a territorial individual as compared to their female counterparts. This is the only logical reason I can think of that explains society’s preference for the influential. When considered within the context of the workplace and profession, it can thus clearly be seen why “macroscopic” careers are often given more emphasis and prestige than “microscopic” careers, and this also explains why “macroscopic” professions are more in demand than “microscopic” ones.  What’s regrettable is that there are some job candidates who are pursuing the “macroscopic” jobs for the wrong reasons. Prestige, fame and monetary remuneration should never precede one’s calling to the profession in one’s career choice(s). What’s more important is that one is comfortable in their own skin when working, similarly to aligning one’s personalities with one’s dressing style.

It is very important that we know where our strengths and talents lie. In deciding this, we should not let any suggestions/comments from others influence our judgement. Ultimately, we know ourselves best. When we are working in a certain job/profession, we ourselves are in the best position to evaluate if the career is suitable for us. And I will recommend that we evaluate our careers choices by our suitability in the position based on the level of satisfaction (and I will like to add happiness) that we experience during our terms of employment with the organisation (or if we are working freelance, the times when we are working in the professions of our own choosing.) Our take on our preference for the job may be different from others as they might be using a different set of criteria as benchmarks for assessment. Should disagreement results, we should try out best to enquire about the criteria that others are using and then getting them to see our point of view on prioritising our suitability for the job/profession as the primary criteria (that is, if you agree with me on this). I believe that even if others continue to disagree with us, at least they will understand our perspectives.

At the end of the day, we really do need to take a good self-reflective look at ourselves and what we are good at. There is nothing wrong with working in a “microscopic” position if we are more suited for it. It’s the level of self-esteem and the sense of satisfaction and pride that we derive from our professions that make all the differences. 

For those of us who are adept at working at the “microscopic” level, then we should do the best that we can and excel in the profession. We might not carve out a name for ourselves in this life as compared to individuals working in the “macroscopic” professions, but at least we know - deep down in our hearts - that we have chosen to live our lives right and to the fullest.

Corporate Culture versus Corporate Vision

In many books that line the shelves today, we see many business titles advising (potential) employees on the ways to adapt to the workplace.

One most commonly-used term is “corporate vision”. And one common technique that is often suggested is to align ourselves to the corporate vision of organisations. When we do this, we will then be able to work as a team since we are moving in a single direction (while being regarded as a great team player at the same time). This is all well and fine but interesting, a more impactful and determining factor often gets left out in the process: corporate culture. Not many reasons have been given to explain the term’s absence from most books relating to adapting to the workplace but I believe that much can be attributed to the fact that corporate vision is very prominent and its emphasis is high in the workplace while corporate culture is something that is not often highlighted or spoken about. Some of us might even regard corporate culture as a set of “unwritten rules”.

However, if we were to examine employees in organisations, it’s not hard to observe that most employees leave organisations due to the their inability to adapt themselves to the corporate culture (more than the corporate vision) and/or their incompatibility with the working style of their  (immediate) superiors (which – to a certain degree- contributes to the corporate culture of the organisation as well). Hence, it can be observed that tackling the issues of  corporate culture (which often changes with the change in management) is more crucial and imminent than handling corporate vision (which is likely to stay the same for a longer period of time and which most of us usually agree with). But coping with the corporate culture of an organisation often proves to be tricky because it is usually unspoken and it comes in many forms, from the ways that employees handle tasks to the “official/unofficial” hierarchical structure of individual departments to the employees’ preferred dress codes and many more. It usually takes a substantial amount of time for a new employee to get used to the workplace, and this situation is made worse by the fact that most job candidates applying for a job in the organisation have almost no way of knowing about the corporate culture of the organisation unless they have worked in the organisation as interns for a particular/inordinate period of time. The fact that each of us holds different attitudes and perceptions to a particular organisation’s corporate culture (due to our different life experiences etc) doesn’t make matters easier. What job candidates have is an organisation’s website and the interview process (or processes if they are fortunate), both of which will probably not tell them much about an organisation’s corporate culture.  But corporate vision is different. It’s usually right there on the organisation’s website, or framed and hang up in one of the organisation’s conference rooms.

In another words, corporate vision is merely a sentence or two (or maybe a few paragraphs) while corporate culture is a set of practices that permeate the entire organisation. This explains why new employees are more often fumbled by an organisation’s corporate culture than by its corporate vision.

There is no great/standard way to circumnavigate this issue and more often than not, I believe that most of us just resolve this issue via a “trial-and-error” process. For the lucky ones among us, they might get to work as interns. And due to the fact that they fit into the corporate culture of the organisation, it’s a smooth transition from intern to employee right after their internship process. But those are probably the fortunate few. For the rest of us, we will probably have to work in various organisations (at times in different capacities) to find the right organisation where there a right fit between the organisation’s corporate culture and ourselves. This may take months or even years,  but this seems to be the only way. There is a silver lining in the cloud though. When we move between organisations, there are transferable skills that we are able to pack with us when we move. Some examples range from soft skills such as interpersonal communication skills to somewhat technical expertise such as streamlining work processes, which really depends on your profession and personal work experiences during your terms of employment with the organisation. And so it goes, until we find an organisation whose corporate culture is in tune with our personal values and beliefs.

Most corporate workplaces I have come across are usually collectivistic in nature, both in the work processes and in the course of working as a team player. Herein lies the problem for the individualists, who often face a conflict between utilising their talents in a collectivistic work environment (which may be detrimental to how they are perceived as team players) and having to conform (where their talents mostly go unseen and regrettably, unused). Since there are quite a number of individualists in this world, not all will fit into a corporate environment. However, if an organisation possesses a corporate culture that embraces not only diversity but individualism, then that organisation will probably attract more talents than any typical organisations. Thus, corporate culture can be seen as one of the primary determining factor of the success of any organisations.  It’s surprising to see that most organisations and textual resources out there regard corporate vision as the springboard to success instead.

If an organisation is a machine, then the corporate visions will merely serve as the blueprints for the future productivity of the machine while corporate cultures are the actual mechanics and design of the machine, the nuts and bolts that keep the machine running for years to time.

What is the point of focusing in organisations’ future when the very essence of their success lies in the here and now?

Altruism in the workplace

In each of us, I believe that there exists a sense of reciprocity in our nature. In another words, I believe that we are more inclined to help someone who has helped us previously than otherwise (of course, if someone offends us, we should choose forgiveness). In addition, when we reciprocate someone who has extended offers of help to us, we usually do it more out of a truly altruistic nature than mere obligations. Thus, we often find that individuals who often render help to someone in poverty or who is physically handicapped often received genuine support (and at times help) from others in return. And during these times, help are often rendered to the good Samaritans without them asking for assistance. This is the power and impact of altruism. Human are social creatures and no man’s an island. While this sounds much like truism, it’s almost a fact that we cannot survive alone.

Translating this to the workplace, we can safely say that only colleagues who help one another in the workplace thrive and experience happiness working in the workplace, even in the midst of office politics (which can get especially dense at some workplaces). We need others’ help to get things done most of the time (just think about the effort that others have put in just to put food on our table: the preparation of the rice, the delivery by freight to our country, the supermarket staff placing the rice on the shelf, the effort put in to cook the food by the food vendors for us).

In the workplace, this is getting more challenging with the increase in communication tools. While emails and videoconferencing may be seen as convenient tools that increase our access to interpersonal communications, sincere gestures and the human touch seem missing even though they are there. Some of you might be thinking about Smileys now but emoticons are merely weak substitutes when it comes to human social connection. We need to engage in more face-to-face communications and show others that we care. Even if this is not possible (which is often the case due to hectic work pace in some instances), the next best alternative is to express these feelings in emails, which is an art in and of itself. Being such a formalised setting, the workplace seldom condones informal emails except for the closest of friends. But even then, informal emails are often frowned upon. But regardless of the method and channel of communication, sincerity and our caring quality must be put across to the other parties. This is an entirely different topic altogether and I will save this for another day. Let us return to the fact that we should help one another in the workplace. I understand that some of us are introverted by nature and some of us may (prefer to) work on a solitary basis (which should be duly respected, by the way). This is not an issue as long as we make every effort to help, guide and/or mentor our colleagues whenever possible.

Many of us face intense challenges of working happily in the workplace, the most serious of which is the existence of job promotions and performance appraisals. We find that the workplace is intense, often to the point of being extremely competitive. This is especially so in the sales profession, where sales quotas have to be met and where promotions are hinged on one’s sales performance for the year. Generally, promotions are limited to a few candidates but there are tons of working professionals vying for the position.  Our unhappiness thus falls on a single factor: a desire for promotion and hopefully, a pay raise and a great appraisal (which both looks good on a personal level and on one’s resume). If we were to be very honest and examine our basic motivations, it merely comes down to this single factor. We may say that it’s because we have been working for far too long not to be promoted, there’s unfair job appraisals, we can’t contribute much to this particular project and the likes but at the end of the day, most of us often compare the times we have spent working and asking ourselves about how this will lead to the chances of promotion or career advancement. Unless we intend to while away our time, we usually want something for our efforts, be it recognition, awards, pay raise, good appraisals and promotions. And when we realise that we are not getting it, we feel that our efforts and contributions are not being recognised. And our motivation level subsequently drops by the day.

But it need not be this way. 

There is a great way to circumnavigate the issue of office politics: positive mindset change. Yes, in order to experience happiness in the workplace, we need to change our mindset. While there are many factors affecting and determining happiness at work, a positive mindset change is essential.  This is stage 1, which is a crucial stage in a 3-stage process. Let’s look at them in turn:

(Stage 1) Positive mindset change: Let’s face it, I believe all of us need a strong rationale and a high motivation level to actually do or implement something. Helping our colleagues is no different. Unless “helping your colleagues” is your personal life goal, we need to know the reasons why we should do so.  If we do not have a strong reason, then it’s best that we come up with one.  Each of us will probably have a different reason for helping our colleagues,  so it’s up to us to believe in one, preferable the most persuasive/convincing one. I will like to share my rationale for helping my colleagues with you and I hope that some insights can be drawn from it. Personally, I believe that although I feel that all of us are imbued with a strong degree of altruism in us, we cannot develop this quality unless we practise altruistic acts often. And considering that we spend much time in the workplace, this makes our workplaces one of the best places to practise altruism. Of course, practising altruism in our families also helps in reinforcing our altruistic beliefs.  I usually use altruistic practices as the basic foundations. Subsequently, I believe that all humans want to be happy, not sad. All of us want to be loved and cared for. But all too often, we usually wait for others to love and care for us. ”Take the initiative” is one practice that we often ignore.  Hence, taking the initiative to care for and help someone is very important in the midst of creating a positive mindset change. Of course, we have commitments in our lives and thus, we have to say ”no” at times. In a nutshell, do not be someone who says “yes” all the time but whenever we are able to assist, it will be great to say “yes”.

However, there are some of us who do not like to owe others any favours. Thus, there might be a strong tendency for others to say no to us. In this case, do not insist but accept their refusal to accept your help (however, do not see this as their rejection of your friendship but rather, more of our acceptance of their personalities or realities/outlook on life).

Of course, as mentioned above, most of us are concerned about promotion. However, we should draw a distinct line between our chances for promotion and our rapport with our colleagues.  Personally, I believe that “what’s meant to be is meant to be”. There might be some of us who feel that this is a somewhat pessimistic/happy-go-lucky perspective but think about it:  it’s best that we go with the flow of life since there are many things in life that are not within our control. Consider photographers for example. They are able to capture beautiful images but it’s only because the images are there for them to capture. Even in the case where photographers are capturing images of still life such as arranging the order of the bracelets or necklaces, that’s only because the materials are there for them to photograph in the first place. There’s a certain truth when someone says that “everything in life happens for a reason”. You are probably reading this blog because you are interested in certain aspects of communications, else it’s not likely that you will chance upon this blog out of tons of blogs online, yes?

Once we have understood and cemented our basis for helping others whenever possible and appropriate, it will become second nature to us.    

(Stage 2) Accept help from others whenever possible after we have helped them: After we have developed this altruistic mindset and begin helping others, there will come a point in time where others will want to reciprocate our sincere and kind gesture by helping us back. It’s at this point that I have noticed that we tend to reject others’ assistance. I used to do that too, the primary reason being that I do not want others to feel obliged or to inconvenience others. Some of us might reject others’ offers of help because we feel that it’s unnecessary, that it looks too much of a “business transactions” when we accept it etc. But many years later, I realise that I am wrong in rejecting others’ help. We can see this most clearly when we put ourselves in their shoes.  As mentioned at the start of this article,  we have a tendency to reciprocate those individuals who have helped us. Thus, when we reject others’ reciprocity, we are indirectly making them feel bad about not being able to help us back in return. And this is not a good feeling. It is just like emailing your friends. When someone emails us, we should respond, right? So, we should accept others’ offer for help in return after we have helped them, unless doing so will cause them great inconvenience.  Helping one another in this way thus becomes a virtuous cycle that will continue and our rapport with our colleagues is thereby strengthened.

(Stage 3) Inculcate the value of altruism by mentoring someone: It’s good if we practice altruism in our lives but it will be great if we pass on the values of engaging in altruistic practices to others through mentorship programs in our organisations. After all, almost all values are transmitted over time through a mentor. It could be our parents or our colleagues. There are several ways that altruism can permeate the workplace. One method will be a formal discussion session of altruistic practices by our colleagues and ourselves, or via email mailing lists circulated internally within and/or between departments. Organisation newsletters work just as well. We can also influence others through the use of stories. Storytelling and stories have often been very persuasive and attractive tools that have been used throughout the ages. Just think of all the moral lessons being taught to us through Aesop’s Fables. A third method will be to make altruistic acts a habitual practice in every moment of our lives on a daily basis. In other words, let us walk the talk.

I believe that with an increased level of altruism in the workplace, tension will be reduced and the level of happiness will increase. It need not always be competition in the workplace. Collaboration is also a possibility.

Why should our working lives be a “rat race”? It can also be a “slow nature walk through the park as a group”.

If only we let it be.

Great communication is not about what you say, it’s about how you make others feel

Let’s try a quiz:

What is the purpose of words within the context of communications?

a. A device that we use to communicate with others

b. A device that complicates matters

c. A device that is redundant

d. None of the above

e. All of the above

Now let’s explore the options one by one.

It’s undeniable that the usage of words is a contemporary practice, since our forebears in ancient times may probably not know what words are. It is only in recent times that words are introduced into the communication process. If this is the case, then how do we humans communicate in the past? Body gestures and facial expressions maybe? If this is indeed the case, then I believe that we can safely say that emotions rather than rationality dominate. This is because emotions are more closely aligned with our nonverbal expressions (we often laugh/yawn – depending on our emotions – before we even realise it) while words are more aligned with rationality (we usually compose our thoughts and sentences before speaking up, unless we are angry which makes us extremely irrational). Since our emotional responses often precede rational responses, it will be interesting to explore the quiz questions above within the context of this assumption.

When we consider option a, it’s undeniable that we use words as a communication device or tool to communicate with others. Coupled this with the fact that emotions precedes rationality in human communications, we can safely assume that words serves as a secondary and complementary communication tool that we employ alongside our primary emotional  (nonverbal) responses. Words are thus an extension of our primitive nonverbal communications. Hence, words can be considered as the lacquer that is applied on the basic foundation of human nonverbal communications. The statistics of 55% body language (nonverbal), 38% vocals (nonverbal) and 7% words (verbal) further confirmed this (although personally, I still see the strong significance of words. And where I feel that the current indicated low percentage of 7% has done it a severe injustice). With this additional tool, humans are able to extend their communications to the written form (which is almost not possible before). However, when it comes to the verbal structure, users of words sometimes compromise their own effectiveness in their communications with their -at times- contradicting nonverbal responses, of which shaking one’s head while saying “yes” is one unusual albeit humourous example. I believe that you can think of another.

This leads us to explore option b, where it’s indeed a fact that humans often send contradictory signals in their communication process in both their verbal and nonverbal signals. Using the abovementioned examples, there are some who even said that “when someone shakes their head and says ‘yes’, take ’no’ as the answer.” This is so true. Considered within the context that our emotional responses not only precedes our rational responses but is a stronger indication of our intended message (how many times have some of us showed an immediate sign of irritation when we are interrupted by a sudden ringing of a phone call in the midst of a task before we picked up the receiver, composed ourselves and respond with a rational, polite “hi!” ?),  words often complicate rather than facilitate the communication process. We  can observe this in our daily experiences: some boyfriends/girlfriends saying “yes” verbally all the time (so that they can be together with their other half [rational]) until their patience ran out and  they lose their cool [emotional], some children saying “yes” to parents (to avoid further conflicts [rational]) until their freedom threshold  is reached and they started rebelling  [emotional] while some employees say “yes” all the time to their bosses (so that they can be seen as a great team player [rational]) until their personal commitments get infringed and they started to reconsider their career options [emotional and in this instance, rational at the same time].  It can be observed that for each of the examples, there’s an almost eternal conflict between our emotional and rational self. While our rational self has enabled us to conform to societal norms, it’s usually the emotional self which will ultimately reign. And this is no surprise since it’s the latter that is our most primitive response. It’s our emotions which have ensured our survival, not rationality which is nevertheless a rather new creation. It’s primitive fright that makes us run from danger, not our self-imposed rationalisation.

This brings us to option c, which seems to suggest the discarding of words entirely. I believe that you will agree with me that we can live without words. Living in a world filled with words but devoid of nonverbal communication signals will make us automatons and androids (which I believe that none of us will want to be in) but living in a world filled with emotions but devoid of verbal communication signals makes communication all the clearer, doesn’t it? After all, we used to come from this world. However, it seems that agreeing that words as a communication device is redundant reinforces the fact that words complicates matters [option b] but contradicts the effectiveness of using words as a communicating tool [option a]. However, if we look closely, we will see that all three options a,b, and c do not contradict one another, since we humans are a bunch of dilemmas and enigmas ourselves. We understand the challenges that words pose to communications but we still prefer using rational words over emotional ones (especially in email correspondences in the workplace). It has often puzzled me that the workplace favoured a logical/rational responses where an emotional response might be a better option. In a retrenchment situation, compare a scenario where a worker is informed to leave by a letter with an alternate scenario of a personal chat session with his supervisor).  Emotions has often been considered to be the causes of biasness, the roots of favouritism and the sparks of conflicts but this is being too pessimistic and cautious. On a more positive note, we should not forget or ignore the fact that emotions are also the bonds that bind colleagues and their bosses together, the string that creates esprit de corps/camaraderie and the glue that gels team players together. Until organisation understands the significance of emotions, option c will never be accepted. But personally, as an individualist, I will accept option c as a “yes”.

The abovementioned arguments have apparently placed option e as the answer. Please feel free to disagree but let us now consider how communication can be improved if we communicate by appealing to the emotional aspects of others, rather than tackling their more rational sides.

When we communicate with others, we are often judged by others by what I call the “feel”.  The term “feel” is merely a substitute that serves as an approximation to what is actually being assessed about us by others.  It is very challenging to break down the concept of ”feel” into its proper components, in the same way that a photographer finds it challenging to explain to an amateurish learner of photography why a particular photo “feels” right when the former snapped the photo at that precise moment in time. But I will like to give it a try with the following equation:

Feel = Aura of a person (which is formed based on their life experiences and their receptivity to it, as well as their thoughts in this life, culminating in a positive, neutral or negative state) + their nonverbal cues (which includes eye contact, facial expressions, physical appearances, paralinguistic, eye contact etc)

Similar to chemistry where various chemicals are combined together to form specific concoctions, we tend to assess someone based the combination of the abovementioned factors. This is the reason why we take well to some individuals but not the rest. And the most amazing thing is that this assessment of ours often occurs at the subconscious level, thereby rendering us helpless to our intuitive assessment of others. This is also the reason why we are able to observe at a glance during a party/social gathering whom to talk or relate to. This method is often done unintentionally and the accuracy level of assessment may not be perfect. But I believe that accuracy level is rather high. And it works to our advantage since we are able to “read” someone without even having to talk to them.

And this selection of conversation partners forms the first step of emotional connections. It’s a hard fact to accept but it’s true that emotional connection is a stronger human connection as compared to rational connection. And it’s also true that we do not connect well emotionally with everybody. This is where we need to choose selectively. However, does this mean that we are only genetically wired to connect with certain individuals? No, as we can communicate with anybody, but only with effort and patience from all communicating parties.  But does this mean that we are able to bond stronger with some while not with others? Yes, since emotional connections works well with people who are more relational but less so with individuals who are more task-oriented.  However, going back to the first point on connecting with everybody, I will like to highlight that this is possible through the use of three factors: developing a deep and strong understanding and acceptance of varying personalities of others as well as being caring. Deep within our human psyche, all of us want to be accepted and loved. And if we are able to express this emotionally to the other party, it usually works. Hence, we can conclude that we can communicate and connect with anybody.

I am a strong advocate of emotional connection but it’s usually the ladies that have the edge in this aspect of communication. But I believe that guys can master this too.

It’s probably merely a matter of mindset, yes?

The Essence of Quiet leadership

For this article, let us think of leaders of corporate organisations.

When one thinks of the term “leadership” within such a context, corporate management members and CEOs come immediately to mind for most of us. I believe that the primary reason this happens is because of visibility issues. By the term “visibility”, I am referring to the amount of media exposure given to the particular individual, and/or his/her prominence in the industry or organisation. Usually leaders are more prominent, as they are leading the organisation most of the time. But when examined closely, we will realise that it’s more than their leadership position that creates their prominence. It’s the social status and respect attributed to leaders in society that makes them leaders.

However, while this recognition given to the leaders increases their prominent, it also places a specific group of individuals in their shadows. These groups of individuals may share the same degree of leadership abilities as the leaders, if not stronger. However, they lack two crucial components/elements that  seriously  undermine their success: the lack of acknowledgement by others of their contribution and an absence of authoritative power bestowed upon them for proper recognition. 

Let us call these leaders the quiet leaders.

Most quiet leaders love this lack of attention as they value their subtlety.  What’s interesting to note is that there need not be a conflict of interest between the designated leaders and the quiet leaders, and their aims and goals can be in total alignment. Or at least they are able to come to a certain level  of agreement. When this congruency is achieved,  a corporate organisation will grow stronger because the designated leaders are aided by the quiet leaders, and not supplanted by them. This is a very powerful combination which - when utilised well - will enable a corporate organisation to flourish and prosper.

These quiet leaders share some distinctive traits, and they are as follows:

• Influence rather than lead: Quiet leaders usually choose a more indirect path of influencing others rather than lead. Most quiet leaders are – more often than not – relational rather than authoritative. They believe in persuasion techniques more so than a “command and control” style. And out of the three primary types of persuasion (ethos [credibility], pathos (emotional) and logos [logic/reasoning]), they seem to have a particular strong preference for pathos, handling relationships and building rapport with flair. Using an interesting analogy, official leaders usually adopt a more masculine approach to leadership but quiet leaders choose the less travelled and less recognised path of leading by influence, thereby sacrificing prominence for impact, with a dose of personal touch thrown in.

 

• Question and give suggestions rather than dishing out orders/instructions: Usually designated leaders instruct. However, quiet leaders question and give suggestions for change. When considered from this aspect, it’s not difficult to see why quiet leaders often come across as being more influential because the very act of questioning provides room for others for introspective self-reflection, which is critical for change to happen. Questioning has often been considered to be one of the more powerful and effective persuasive tools available. Just think of a salesperson making a sales pitch to someone with his/her sales spiel as compared to him/her asking their customers why they do not see a need for the product.  Putting someone in a reflective (but not doubtful) mode is a good start to persuasion. Couple this with the provision of suggestion (which opens up possibilities for almost anyone), it can easily be observed why people tend to favour quiet leaders for their subtle leadership abilities.  In fact, the very act of questioning and providing suggestions are very good springboards to revitalising the hidden creative powers within all of us. And most quiet leaders know just how to utilise these powers.

 

•  High level of flexibility: Quiet leaders usually do not dominate. On the contrary, they encourage, advise and when it calls for it, support their friends and mentees. This style of leadership and mentorship is somewhat akin to what is expected of educators, where guidance and support are used as the primary motivating devices in the classrooms. What is meant by “flexibility” here refers to the freedom given to the quiet leaders’ friends, mentees or subordinates so that they are given room to make mistakes and be the best that they can be in making positive contributions to society and the world at large. In some corporations, a “top-down” approach is often adopted by designated leaders to ensure a consistency of messages. However, quiet leaders’ patience has given them an advantage since they are less directive and more nurturing. As such, their leadership style is not only subtle, it usually adopts a “bottom-up” approach as quiet leaders tend to influence the people on the ground first. It is important to note that there’s no conflict in leadership direction for both designated leaders and quiet leaders when the designated leaders give the directions and the quiet leaders inspire and motivate the same messages from the ground.

 

• Influence small groups, group by groups: Unlike designated leaders who have a tendency to influence others in one go, quiet leaders work resiliently at influencing people, group by group. Often lacking the organisational charisma of designated leaders, quiet leaders often compensate this weakness with remarkable enthusiasm and presentation/persuasion flair in smaller groups. What is strong about quiet leaders in this aspect is that they get to influence others on a personal basis (since most interactions are usually face-to-face), thus giving a very strong human touch to his interaction style, and his charisma to boot. Quiet leaders are at their most charismatic when they are engaged in conversations within small groups.  If there are people in this world who are able to give others a strong “I-feel-like-I-have-know-him/her-from-before” feeling, it’s usually the quiet leaders. They are the gentle and conversational individuals who move unknowingly in the crowd and before anyone detects their presence, they would have given them a friendly tap on the shoulder, a sincere smile of friendship and a nod of acknowledgement. Such is the power of quiet leaders, working the room without seeming to.

 

• Excellent listeners:  While most designated leaders often make an effort to listen, they are not always able to do so, due to increased workload. Quiet listeners, on the other hand, often come in useful here as listening ears for employees who want a listening ear. Most quiet leaders are often geared towards the passive rather than the assertive (which is a quality frequently attributed to designated leaders).  Thus, quiet leaders make excellent listeners since listening is, in and of itself, a passive act. Constantly tuning in to the changing sentiments of others, quiet leaders are highly sensitive to the moods and temperaments of others, be they permanent or transient. As such, quiet leaders make good confidants. This closeness between the listener and the listened often result in strong forging of lifelong friendships that any other types of friendships inevitably pale in comparison to.

 

An individual who possess all of the abovementioned traits (or at least most of it) are likely to be a quiet leader. I believe that all of us are leaders in their own rights and thus, it is only in our leadership styles that vary. And at the two extreme ends of the spectrum lie the Designated Leader and Quiet Leaders respectively. I will like to dedicate this article to anyone who is not in a leadership position and feels that he/she is not a leader.  For these individuals, I hope that you are able to see that you also have leadership qualities in you. It’s just that designated leaders are often openly acknowledged as leaders in society while the rest are not, unfortunately.

But even if the world does not acknowledge this fact, you can.

And I hope that you will.

In communications, always align our moods and temperaments with others

It’s a fact that all of us live in our worlds due to different realities. This is explored in details in my article here. Each of us live in a different virtual world and hence, we project our virtual realities outwards to the universal physical world that we live in. Unfortunately, this projection is one way and no matter how much we hope that others will see our realities the way we do, it’s highly impossible because they live in their own separate realities and hence different worlds.  In another words, we are living on different virtual planets (where we are the only inhabitants) while occupying similar physical spaces. From a metaphorical perspective, asking/expecting/demanding others to see our world the way we do is akin to taking our spectacles/contact lenses off and wanting others to wear them and seeing our worlds through these lenses. However, each of us has different eye degrees; some of us are short-sighted, long-sighted or even myopic. Thus, there’s no “one-size-fits-all” when it comes to looking at the world. This is due to our different life experiences, culture and upbringing that each of us has. To be a great communicator, this is one of the primary understandings of psychology that each communicator needs to know. In my article above, I have given readers insights on how to go about accessing someone’s realities and subsequently their world. But it takes time.

If we are talking about establishing and maintaining short-term rapport with others, there is a better and more efficient way.  

This understanding of us having different realities pales in comparison to another fact that is more crucial in all if not most successful communications: that of our moods or temperaments. While our realities may forge our world, they do not affect our communication with others within a short duration. Our realities will also come into play when we are engaged in communication with others through a sustained and long period of time. Thus it is not possible to establish rapport with others in short-term social gatherings and chance meetings along the streets through the understanding of their realities. However, we are able to by aligning our moods and temperaments with theirs. Here’s an interesting observation:  the chances of us establishing short-term rapport with them based on their temperaments is possible, and it’s two or even three times higher.  This is because people like people who are like them, and who like them. It is important to note at this point that while we may observe a particular individual having a certain mood or temperaments at that point in time, it might not be indicative of their true selves. It might merely be the fact that they are happy because it’s their birthday on that day or that they are disappointed because they have failed their exams. Their temperaments and moods will inevitably change over a course of a few days/weeks/years, depending on their susceptibility to changes in the external circumstances (which varies widely between individuals). 

But in the process of communication, the difference in the moods and temperaments of others and ourselves do not matter. In another words, what’s important in establishing rapport in the short-run occurs at the point of contact, specifically  the awareness of the change in temperaments and moods in others as well as the development of an ability to cope with this change by aligning our moods and temperaments with theirs. The moods and temperaments of the person at the point of contact is the most crucial. As long as we align our moods and temperaments with that of the other person, it’s highly likely that strong rapport will be established. Please note that this practice is - in no way- an act of manipulation or deception. We are merely reacting to the situation in the best way possible. For example, if we enter a room and see a large group of friends breaking into laughter due to some jokes, would we laugh along with them as well? Or would we keep a straight face throughout the session? If we adopt the latter, we will probably be ostracised by the rest. After all, laugh and the world laugh with you. Cry and you cry alone. Consider another example. If one of our friends invite us to their dinner and while we are on our way there, our bosses called and informed us that we are going to be retrenched in a week’s time and that he feels that he should be the one to break the news to us rather than the Human Resources department. When we reached the venue of our friends’ wedding dinner, there are two ways that we will usually react: we either walk into the wedding dinner with strained smiles on our faces or we call and inform our friends that something urgent came up and thus, we are unable to attend the dinner. It’s highly unlikely that we will walk in with frowns on our faces to congratulate the newly-wed couples because I believe that at a subconscious level, we understand that weddings are a happy occasion and if our moods and temperaments do not suit the occasion, it’s best that we change our behaviour and attitude to suit the occasion rather than trying to change the ambience to suit us (which is almost impossible).

It’s always better to align our mood and temperaments to others rather than the other way round. I call this the “unwritten rule” of communications. However, there is an exception to this rule. Should the temperaments of the other party be negative or more negative than ours, then it’s advisable for us to influence them with our more positive moods and sentiments. By doing so,  we benefit not only the mental well-being of the other party but also create a positive ambience that is more conducive for conversations and friendship-building. Moreover, if there are other parties around in the setting, setting a positive mood will benefit them as well. However, this can only be done when we acknowledge the feelings of others first. We listen to others’ moods first before attempting to influence them. It is important that others get a sense of acknowledgement of their feelings because it’s human nature that we want others to understand our current situation, plight and predicament first before we will make efforts to change or accept them as a friend.  This is similar to others who often apologise to us after we have apologised to them. Human nature seems to dictate that we need an opportunity to apologise when engaged in a conflict. Such an opportunity often appears in the form of an apology offered by others or as an acknowledgement by others that we are right. In the absence of such an opportunity, we seldom apologise, with our proclivity to apologise in inverse proporation to the size of our egos.  Professional and accomplished counsellors understand this and hence they show the other party that they are empathising first before beginning the counselling session. And one of the primary ways to express empathy is to listen without judgement, advice or comments. Refrain also from saying “I understand”, since in actuality - unless we have encountered and experienced similar situations – we really do not understand. Saying that we understand when we don’t is a contradiction that communicators do not want to make (since trust, sincerity and credibility are lost), and this is especially so for professional psychologists and counsellors.

Coming back to the subject of establishing short-tem rapport through the alignment of our moods and temperaments with others and establishing long-term rapport through the understanding of their realities, we can illustrate this principle with a scenario of the crumbling of a couple’s marriage. When a man meets a lady of a similar temperament or vice versa, they will undoubtedly fall in love. Couples often describe this romantic phase as “meeting someone whom they seem to have met before”, “a sort of familiarity with the person, as if I have known him/her my entire life” etc. Personally, I feel that this is just an illusion. The primary reason for this sentiments lies in their temperaments. There are two reasons leading to such a conclusion:

• Childhood experiences: There are some theories on love and romance that states that we often look for partners whose temperaments are similar to our parents (especially the parent who has a dominant influence during our childhood days). I feel that there’s a certain truth in this.
• Life experiences: All of us have different life experiences, but we share a similarity in that all our life experiences fall into two categories: positive and negative. Based on the people that we meet, we will be attracted to people who give us a positive life experiences and we are repelled by those individuals who give us a negative life experiences. It’s from my experience that if we were to sum up the temperaments of individuals who attract us, the temperaments of these individuals are the same. The same can be said for individuals who repel us. There is a pattern. Over time, being creatures of habits, we will somehow be controlled by this pattern. This is the reason why some people always end up with partners of the same temperaments.

After these couples got married, things start to fall apart because although they have the same temperaments, they do not share the same realities. While he may like to help others, she is more “self-centric” (conflict in values). While he wants seven kids, she does not intend to have any (conflict in marital values). While he prefers to party, she prefers to stay home (conflict in lifestyle).  Our realities are complex since they consist of different components, of which values, marital values and lifestyle are among them. This is also the reason why numerous self-help books place so much emphasis on asking questions that relates to life after marriage (and which many euphoric couple fails to see during the dating phrase). These self-help books are – in actuality- helping these couples to map out their realities to see if there is an alignment before the important decision to tie the knot.

Thus, to establish rapport in the short term, it’s best if we align our moods and temperaments with others. However, when it comes to sustaining a long term working relationship with colleagues/bosses or building lifelong friendships/marriages, we have to go beyond that and understand their realities, which – while it can be achieved- is very challenging.

Well, who says working with others or living with another person is easy?

But then, joy is derived from relationships and it’s only through these relationships that we learn most of life’s lessons.

Yes, it’s a contradiction.  But a fact of life as well.

Connectivity is good but too much is not

With the emergence of the internet, emails and WIFI, the term “connectivity” is a very interesting word to examine. As social networking sites proliferate, human connection seems to have improved in recent years. With a click of a mouse, your colleague would have received an email. With a press of a button, a SMS has reached the phone of your friend overseas. With a touch on a “touch screen” display, a document can be displayed for all to see. This seems to be the period where humans really connect, not exactly physically but emotionally and psychologically, aided by the advancement of technology, specifically the cyberspace and numerous telecommunications devices and broadband.  It’s thus hard to separate the word “connectivity” (which usually refers to connections made between machines) from “connection” (which has a more human touch and refers to human bonds and friendships being forged). In a metaphorical sense, it seems that machines and humans have blended into one single organism, where one cannot do without the other. This proves contrary to past sci-fi films where machines are often more feared than adored, as depicted in films such as “The Terminator” and ”Artificial Intelligence”.  

This article is written to illustrate the point that machines do increase the ”connection nodes” among humans but in the process, they do not bond us. In fact, they are the primary cause of human miscommunications  and the determining factor behind the changing landscape of labour market. Let’s look at some examples:

• Emails: It’s true that emails are a much better option than snail mail. It sends a mail faster than any hardcopy letters. When it comes to the speed of delivery, we are talking more about seconds than days or even weeks. What’s more, photos, documents and other forms of attachments can be sent too, with no postage charge.  However, this is merely skimming the surface.  Because the speed of email delivery – be it information, well wishes or festive greetings- is almost instantaneous, the delights of anticipation is lost. In another words, emails does not result in happier human relations but rather, instant gratification. Instant gratification from emails is different from instant gratification from films (where a closure is often given at the end, at least for mainstream films). In emails, instant gratification lies within the domain of receiving, in this case an email. But in spite of this, there is often no closure or that closure takes a substantial period of time to materialise (because due to the high speed of delivery,  we often do not take the time to put some thoughts into our emails and hence they are often either incomplete or inaccurate. resulting in miscommunications). Doubts will surface in emails that require verification and clarification, especially in the workplace. This will result in the exchange of numerous emails before a decision/consensus/outcome can be reached, and we are now merely talking about an email correspondence regarding a single matter. When pending matters to attend to increase, the amount of emails also increases. Coupled this increase with the fact that there is no standardised system of classifying emails to the different categories and level of importance, emails create confusion and disruptions both in the workplace (where  working professionals get confused) and at home (where working professionals are expected to check emails at home after work). The responsibility to develop a classification system thus falls on the working professionals and considering the different emails of different level of importance, different senders and different matters, it’s not surprising that even the most organised and logical person will falter and fumble. Emails are said to be among the most effective creations in the workplace but seen in this light, emails are the primary source of increasing workload (since there are increased expectations to have more matters resolved within a much shorter period of time) and miscommunications (nothing beats a face-to-face interaction with someone where both their verbal and non-verbal responses can be assessed). Emails make impromptu changes in our work and life possible. Coupled with increased expectations from others to respond fast, we get the outcome of “work stress”. In the “email-less” era, we do not have these issues and live our lives at a sane pace. Think about it.

 

• Handphones, personal computers (PC) /laptops and palmtops:  Often considered to be a gift to mankind, I beg to differ. It’s undeniable that the ability to reach someone is increased when a telecommunication device is available to each of us instead of having only one in our homes. But because of this fact, handphones now play surrogate mum to what the media has been doing. While the media fill up empty spaces in our lives with activities, music, movies and other forms of distractions, the phone is doing the same via SMSes and calls. It’s important to note that being contactable at anytime is important, especially if there is an emergency that we are attending to, urgent matters to settle, or business deals to close. However, there are times in our lives where we need that space to be creative, to be alone and to brainstorm on matters. And handphones  - in this instance – serve as a tool of disruption to break that silence.  In life, a strong ability to think and analyse is as important a skills as doing something. Thinkers (a.k.a. thought leaders) are as important as doers. Pragmatism must be balanced with creativity in order to be effective. Complementary to handphones are their portable cousins: personal computers /laptops and palmtops. These devices - while not as disruptive (since there are no incoming rings or at least, not as distracting)- prove to be a match to handphones since they compensate these deficiencies with increased functionalities (which is tempting for users to indulge in) and more prominently,  some corporate work cultures almost make it a mandate to have a laptop/palmtop switched on.  Employees are often seen walking around with laptops, placing them in front of them during meetings (when it should be switched off and put away as this is showing respect to the presenters in the meeting) and answering emails on palmtops in buses with both hands (when they should be holding tightly to the metal railings for support as safety is a concern).  It is understandable if we use handphones, laptops and palmtops to attend to urgent matters but more often than not, these matters are not urgent and responses need not be instantaneous. To make matters worse, most instant messaging (IM) system has a “blinking” function to notify its user that there is an incoming message. While this feature is useful, it distracts its users from actively listening or participating in whenever endeavours they are doing. For instance, I have noted on numerous occasions how distracted working professionals answer messages in the midst of a meeting where someone is presenting (not because they choose to but because they have to, either because the matter they are attending to bears  a certain degree of urgency or it’s part of the corporate culture), and this writer is one of them. And I have also noticed how students are distracted by their laptops in the midst of a team discussion. By asking ourselves the questions “Should we not attend to these distractions?”, is laziness and  irresponsibility being advocated here? No. Instead,  I am proposing that sometimes we should stop our work for a rest and use this  time lapse to brainstorm on the following questions: Is there a better solution? Am I able to streamline any processes in order to be more efficient? Am I missing anything when I go about resolving this issue?  These are important questions to consider but it will not happen in the absence of rest time. Thus having a “time-out” session is not only beneficial to our mental and physical well-being but also enables us to improve our skills as communicators and working professionals as well, not to mention the misunderstandings, miscommunications and inefficiencies that will inadvertently result when we do not think things through before responding.

 

• Connectivity in computer games, especially Massively Multiplayer Online Role-playing Games (MMORPGs):  Internet has given us a new land which belongs to all of us without us having to compete for it: cyberspace. However,  merely being in cyberspace does not enable us to interact with others. Hence, along come blogs, emails and instant messaging (IM) systems. However, communications in blogs are predominantly one-way and almost non-responsive to online visitors. Emails are two-way but they do not function in real time, at least not fast enough. Along the same vein, communications in Instant Messaging (IM) systems are able to accommodate groups of people and in real-time. But there is no interesting activity in most of these communications (coming together in an online conference is not exactly what we will call a virtually enjoyable experience, although some might choose to disagree).  Thus MMORPGs has arrived to save the day with the following features: 

1. Communications are more than two-way (online players are able to communicate to almost any other online players);
2. Game play and interaction (almost) in real-time;
3. Players are able to receive audio instructions from other players at times;
4. There is a somewhat similar scenarios for all players and more importantly, a common purpose and a reason for all virtual gamers to come together;
5. Players are given the freedom to enter and leave the game (read: online interactions with other players)
6. In recent years, educators are attempting to infuse learning into game play, thus using entertainment to contribute to one’s cognitive development

There is a flipside to online game play though. Online gaming addictions are getting serious in some countries where access to broadband access and internet gaming are prevalent. Children and students are distracted from their homework and many spend a substantial amount of time in front of computers/laptops instead of textbooks. While individuals are known to be distracted by televisions previously, computers and especially the activity of gaming has taken over as the predominant distractions, especially among students. This trend seems to be irreversible and I personally feel so. This is probably the reason why most educators today choose to accept gaming as a platform for learning instead of ostracising it and consider it as a form of distraction.  I believe that the adage “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” rings true in this case.  Nevertheless, close monitoring of the students are required if gaming is to be introduced as the next frontier in the evolution of education since gaming can be a boon or a bane for students and adults alike.

Out of these new mediums I have identified, I find gaming to be the most favourable to our personal development despite its various flipsides and drawbacks.  I am not saying this because of the fact that I am an educator but also because I feel that online gaming – as long as it has not reached the level of addition – is something that we can control, both in terms of the gaming duration and the type/amount of interaction we have with others. We can choose to end the game or any online conversation easily but when it comes to the other mediums, we can’t – the primary reason being that when we are online in a gaming environment, there’s no professional obligation for us to stay online, unlike in the workplace. However, we can’t free ourselves from our responsibilities of checking emails (especially when it comes to important emails in the workplace), we can’t just ignore a colleague’s message relating to workon MSN and we can’t just  pick up our phone when it rings, especially if it’s from your colleagues or your boss. MMORPGs does not demand our instantaneous responses most of the time but emails, handphones and instant messaging systems installed in personal computers/laptops often do.

I am writing this article not from the perspective of a technophobe but rather, from someone who has seen and identified the adverse effects of technology. Although I am not exactly someone who will fully embrace technology (and I don’t think I ever will), I won’t deny the benefits of technology and how it has improved our lives. This article merely serves to highlight the flipside of technology that most of us are unaware of, or have chosen to ignore. I hope that this article will raise awareness on the pitfalls of technology, especially in the workplace and kick start a discussion on ways to overcome such issues on technological hindrances, not to mention advocating a “back to basics ” approach when it comes to providing that personal touch to all communications, regardless of the communication mediums.

Misconceptions of the “What’s in it for me” mindset

 

Throughout the years, there seems to be a strong tendency for us to steer clear of the “What’s in it for me?” mindset and to embrace the “Care for all” and “Be responsible” mentality. We can see it in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of most organisations, we can see it in educational institutions’ effort to join hands with corporate organisations in a bid to enable students to learn through experiential learning and we can see it in the acts of volunteerism. This is especially so in collective societies rather than individualistic ones but the on the whole, I believe that all if not most of us are afflicted by this phenomenon. In recent years, caring for ourselves almost seems to be a guilt-stricken endeavour. I am not saying volunteerism and altruism are bad. In fact, active volunteerism should be strongly encouraged among students and working adults alike. Giving something back to society and helping the needy and impoverished should be among our life endeavours and yes, it is our responsibility to care for the aging population in our countries.

However, many corporate organisations are currently using these themes of being caring and responsible as a pretext to encourage employees to contribute more to the organisation, often with minimal monetary remuneration or pay increment. In most workplaces in recent years, employees are often expected to work long(er) hours than usual. Some common (implied) comments from bosses and supervisors often go along the lines of  ”you must put in your best effort to contribute to your team“, “you must be responsible to your job and put in the best you have got as this shows that you care“, “you should respond to emails even though you are on leave”, “you should not take leave during the peak period as this is not responsible of you” etc. If we are to examine these comments closely, we will have realised that organisations with such expectations are using our sense of pride in being responsible and caring to fulfill their corporate goals. While this is reasonable since employees are given monetary remuneration in return for services rendered, it is not when organisations push their limits and demand a substantial amount of the employees’ time (which often goes beyond office hours and into the weekends), to the point of affecting the employees’ personal and social life. It is good to be caring and responsible. These are positive traits that we should inculcate in ourselves as a person. These qualities are what make us decent.  However, when these qualities are used by organisations to advocate responses from employees with an agenda to meet corporate goals at the detriment of a employee’s social, mental and physical well-being, it is no longer reasonable. In other words, most corporate organisations are pushing employees away from the “What’s in it for me?” mindset towards the “What’s it in for the organisation?” mentality.

This is what happens when we live our lives in the absence of the ”What’s in it for me?” mentality:

• We work for free
• We totally exhaust ourselves physically and socially due to our work.
• We have no social lives
• We have no time for our families, friends and loved ones
• We do not derive satisfactions from our efforts (such as completing a project etc), which signifies an absence in both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations
• We lose the enthusiasm for learning

It will be good to carefully examine the points above and ask ourselves: Is this the life that we want? If you answer “no” to any of the questions above, it’s time to rethink the true significance of being caring and responsible. Before we elaborate further, let’s examine two phenomena in the corporate workplaces in recent years:

• Monetary Remuneration/Recognition versus Work load: It seems that most employees are overworked and underpaid in recent years. With the upcoming recession, organisations are undergoing restructuring and implementing retrenchments. This has resulted in employees taking on more work load than previously assigned. In some organisations, some employees are asked to take on the additional work load of an ex-colleague when the latter has left the company as the organisation has not intention of rehiring. However, such an increase in workload is seldom compensated by a reasonable increase in pay (if any at all) or any form of (formal) recognition from management. Many in senior management – in fact - consider this as a given. So, what appears to be “additional workload” becomes the norm for any employees in these organisations. And as time goes by, the employees overwork and experience work fatigue. However, the organisations often strive to normalise these over time by having all if not most of the employees handle additional workloads. And because this becomes the corporate culture, few employees have the courage to voice out against this injustice since by doing so, they are actually arguing against what is considered “normal”. However, this is NOT normal and over time, it will take a serious toll on these employees in terms of their health and social lives. 

 

• Effort versus Results within the context of promotion: In the past, many years ago, employees are promoted because they are diligent and hardworking. Organisations value such qualities from employees and promote them accordingly. However, in recent years, things have changed. Employers are looking at quality and productivity over quantity and effort. What this means is that an employee can discard the “What’s in it for me” mindset and put in his/her best effort for the company. However, at the end of the day, they are often not appreciated because they did not deliver the deliverables completely or well. As a result, they are not given the promotion because someone else achieves similar deliverables with lesser or the least effort.  This is a very unfair way of assessing someone for promotion. Hence, the basis for selecting the right candidates for promotion is already seriously flawed. With such flawed assessment systems existing in most organisations, an increasing number of candidates are selected for promotion due to the wrong reasons. And these individuals tend to select their successors using the same criteria (after all, we all like people who are like us). Since these individuals will use the same criteria to select their successors, it’s not surprising that the most aspiring and diligent employees become the welcoming carpets rather than those chosen for promotion. Hard work and aptitude no longer pays off.

There are individuals who have begun to recognise, acknowledge and understand the two observations highlighted above. And thus, they have been moving towards the “What’s in it for me?” mentality, despite the at times strong resistance from their organisations to pull them back to the “what’s in it for the organisation?” motto. More and more individuals are resisting now because they are experiencing and understanding the tolls that the “what’s in it for the organisation?” endeavour are taking on them. Regrettably, there are many more of us who remain ignorant. Collectivism and collaborations can no longer function well in an environment which takes more than it gives. Individuals are thus not able to contribute to the best of their abilities to their organisations, their creativity are stifled due to impending deadlines (of which lack of time is a definite barrier to creativity. People need time and space to think and reflect, and organisations are not giving them that. Promoting creativity in an organisation while demanding almost instantaneous results from employees is an interesting, existing paradox). And as a result, motivations fall since these individuals do not get a sense of satisfaction from what they are doing. There’s even been an instance where a supervisor asked an employee under his charge to note down what he has done on an hourly basis in order to reflect on the quality of work he has done for the organisation. This is hilariously ridiculous since none of us lives by the hour each day. If someone were to ask you what have you done yesterday from 8 - 9am, would you have remembered?  This explains why more and more corporate employees are turning independent and doing more independent consultation work on a freelance basis. Independent trainers and freelance businesses are getting more prevalent and common in recent years, while the typical “salaryman” is getting passe.

In current years, it might be better for employees to consider personal marketing/branding rather than depending on any particular organisation(s) that they are working for since the onus of promoting oneself now lie on the employees themselves rather than on the organisations. Personal branding is the new cool. Each employee has their own strengths, talents and abilities to do things that will benefit their loved ones, their families, their friends, their societies and the world as a whole. We can give so much to the world and help the poor as well as the impoverished. But to do this, we need to recognise these strengths, talents and abilities in ourselves, acknowledge them and use them in our endeavour to make this world a better place. But a crucial element is missing: time. Most organisations are taking a lot of time from employees, to the extent that all other aspects of the employees’ lives are lost and they become merely cogs in a machinery.

It will be good to remember that all of us are self-sustaining individuals who are able to contribute to this world individually and as a cohesive whole.  These two functions should be complementary, and not conflicting.

Only when we make the effort to maintain and sustain this balance are we able to fully put in our best efforts in making our lives and this world a much better place.  

Only when we help ourselves can we truly and fully help others.

People’s responses to your communicating style is not a choice, but a reaction

 

 

We humans always have a strong tendency to want to have a sense of control over all if not most aspects of our lives. This includes our communications with others. When the communication process goes well, we often have the impression that it’s both us and the other parties who have made the decision for the communication process to be successful. After all, it takes two hands to clap. And if the communication process fails, we often attribute the causes to either us or the other parties not making the necessary effort to sustain the communication process. In another words, we – as communicators – often think that responding positively to others (and hence making a communication process work) is a deliberate choice made by all communicating parties.

This is a misconception.

The act of responding positively to others (which often results in successful communications) is more of an innate response or reaction (to certain existing/created stimuli within the context of the situation) than deliberate decisions made by us.

In this article, please allow me to show you why this is so.

While it’s undeniable that all of us do put in effort to ensure successful communication with others and that mutual efforts in maintaining and sustaining successful communication are required by all communicating parties, something far more important is required (which  is often beyond our control). I will like to call this crucial factor that plays a determining role in the success of any communications “stimulus”.  While this term may sound rather technical and scientific in nature, I couldn’t think of any other terms that could better define or describe the causes behind the successes/failures in any human interpersonal communications.  What are meant by “stimulus” in this context are the elements that are present in us as communicators who subsequently evoke a certain positive/negative natural reaction/responses in others. Others often cannot control these natural reactions and even if they do, it will be futile since these reaction/responses due to external stimuli are often overwhelmingly powerful to the point of rendering their resistance useless. The converse holds true as well. We cannot control our responses to others but merely react to certain stimuli which exist in others or are created by them. In another words, we are living on “automatic pilot” mode. Understanding these stimuli thus becomes crucial since these stimuli form the basis for other’s perception of us as person, their receptivity to our communication styles and more importantly, their decision in putting in an effort to ensure successful communications.

So, what are these stimuli? They are as follows:

• Facial/Physical attractiveness: Although there will probably be some of us wanting to believe that personality supersedes facial/physical attractiveness, let’s face it. Inner beauty is important but in this contemporary world where external beauty is often portrayed by the media through visual forms (since it’s the only way that advertising can be easily done), we often assess people through their physical appearances. Chiseled cheekbones, masculine voice and a toned physique will probably give most guys an edge in their communications while a gentle feminine voice, attractive facial features as well as a caring quality will probably give ladies an advantage in enhancing the success of their communications. Some of you might be thinking that this is mere stereotyping but we should not deny the fact that primitive attraction factors have played a crucial role in the success of our communications since the time of our forebears. Just observe a guy speaking to a group of ladies. Which face does his eyes stay the longest? Usually it’s the lady with the most attractive facial features or the lady who is the most well-groomed. There have been changes in recent years, what with the rise of the metrosexuals (increased feminity in males) and feminism (where females are now taking on more masculine activities or roles such as the increased participation of ladies in dragon boat rowing activities which gives them a more toned physique and a darker complexion). I am unsure how these individuals have affected this stimuli but one thing is certain: people sense these differences in them. This is one stimulus that we cannot change much but we can change certain aspects of it. I will talk more about this below. 

 

• Personal grooming:  While facial/physical attractive cannot be changed to a large degree (since it’s often innate), we can still make a choice on external factors, one of which is personal grooming. As mentioned above, people focus on our appearances first, then they assess our personalities (“Looks first, personality second”). While this is definitely not a good technique to adopt in the dating scene but it’s undeniably a fact that most us still do that (especially when guys are primarily visually-oriented). The bad news is that assessing someone’s physical appearances - be it their physical attractiveness or their personal grooming – is one of the worst ways to determine the success of a marriage/communication. But then again, the good news is that we all wear clothes for modesty reasons and hence this gives us a unique opportunity to enhance our attractiveness.  In contemporary times where style is valued more than substance, modesty is no longer the only reason that we wear clothes. With the influx of individualism and creativity, developing and flaunting our own fashion sense has become the more prominent reason. After all, we are moving up Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs now, yes?  Of course, people do not only focus on our clothes. They do focus on our hairdo and clothes accessories (such as belt buckles, shoes, spectacles etc). These are things that we are able to enhance through an improvement in our personal grooming. This stimulus is one of the easier factors to improve on and we should make every effort to do so.

 

• Smile: Now, while we cannot alter much of our physical appearances, we can always do something about our facial muscles.  No, not frown but the exact opposite: smile. Research has been done in these areas and the findings are interesting. Regardless of our cultures, life experiences or upbringing, all of us recognise a happy face. And more than that, a smiling face evokes an uplifting feeling in us and as a result, we tend to communicate more with someone who is smiling. We can try an exercise. Try observing a group of people who are communicating with one another and observe the speaker. When he/she exchanges eye contact with his communicating parties, observe the time spent on the parties. Who does he/she spend more time on in terms of maintaining eye contact (a sign of positive communication)? I believe it’s the person who is smiling (more). If you were to ask the speaker why this is so, they will probably be puzzled about your question since they do not see your observation in themselves. This is because responding positively to others due to specific stimulus is not done at a conscious level. It is usually a reaction at a (very) subtle, unconscious level, to the point that the communicator is not aware of it. In another word, giving a positive response to/ having a positive impression of someone is not a choice; it is a reaction.  It’s true that we do not have total/complete control over someone else’s response to us or even their perception of us. However, we do have some control to tip the scale of likeability to our advantage, one of which is to smile and the other is the use of eye contact, which we will explore below.

 

• Eye contact: This is another stimulus that goes along well with a smile. Usually, great communications take place when these two stimuli are used in combination. And the longer the eye contact with the other party while maintaining a smile, the more receptive is the other party towards us. However, it will be good to understand that too long an eye contact when conversing will lead the other party to interpret that we have a special interest in them. This might in turn mislead others to interpret our eye contact as a form of romantic interest. Unless we intend to convey this intention of ours to the other party, it’s best to look away intermittently either when speaking or listening to others. Nevertheless, the general rule stands that the longer the eye contact from another person, the more interested is that person in us. Another point to note is that the eye contact has to be gentle and friendly. It’s best if we are able to express these emotions in our eyes. There’s an adage that says that “The eyes are the window to our souls.” This is very true, and we can express our emotions through our eye contact with others simply by directing our thoughts towards them. Thoughts such as “I like conversing with this person”, “This person is interesting” and “It’s such a pleasure knowing this person” will help. It’s very challenging to explain how this process works in words but it’s often the case that – like telepathy – the other party senses what we want to tell them merely by observing our facial expression and more importantly, our eye contact. Personally, I will put the impact of a visual impression on others at: 75% eye contact and 25% facial expression. This is how important eye contact is. For those of us who are uncomfortable with maintaining eye contact with someone, we can try looking at the bridge of the nose directly between the eyes. It will give the impression that we are maintaining eye contact with the other party. This is not an act of deception/manipulation but merely, a tool that we should use if we wish to sincerely maintain eye contact with others in a comfortable way. 

 

• Situation/Context: Another stimulus that is important (but not within much of our control) is the situation/context that our communication with others take place. For example, if the other parties are having a bad day and hence are not in the right state of mind to communicate, our efforts and attempts to communicate well with them will probably fail no matter what we do, because great communication takes place when both parties put in effort to communicate. One way we can improve the situation is to make the conversation light, touching on topics that are humourous (not too serious) and non-offensive. Sometimes, even this does not work, in which case we should avoid communicating with the other party for now and wait for a better opportunity. If the person that we wish to communicate is someone we meet at a social gathering and there’s a very slim chance that we will meet them again, then it’s best that we make full use of this opportune time by engaging the person in a conversation for a short while, identify the commonalities between them and ourselves and then excusing ourselves after that (not forgetting to get their contacts before leaving). Contrary to what some of us believe, the environment where we establish communication with others is important, very important. For example, the responses of a CEO if we were to approach him/her in his office to establish communication during office hours will be very much different from how he/she will respond to us if we were to approach them in the golf course where they are practising their craft during the weekends, the primary reason being that when we communicate, we are also considering what others perceive of us. In this case, a CEO – in his/her capacity as a CEO of an organisation – will be much more conscious of how he/she presents himself/herself and responds to others in the office than when he/she is off-duty. Along the same vein, we will also be much self-conscious in certain environments (such as social gatherings, being a public speaker in front of your audience during the Q & A session etc) than in others (relaxing at home, chatting with close friends etc). Thus selecting the right environment – in a way- is also selecting the right stimulus for positive and successful communication.

  

• Humility: When it comes to conversations, quite a number of us neglects or rather, trivialises the importance of humility in conversation content. Many of knows what to talk about but there’s a number of us who do not know how to go about talking about it.  Consider the following responses of a person when we ask them about their jobs:

Response from Mr X: “I am an educator in Communication studies. Basically, I coach and mentor students in their studies in areas of communications, and I find this profession personally very fulfilling because it will improve all if not most aspects of my students’ lives. Frankly, I see this profession more as a calling than a job and I really love what I am doing right now. And seriously, I really learn a lot from my students even as I am coaching them. I figure we all learn from the experiences of others in life. How about yourself? Please allow me to get to know more about you. ”

Response from Mr Y: “I am an educator in Communications, with a Bachelor in Mass Communications, majoring in Journalism and Media Studies. Previously, I have pursued a degree in Computing. I figure that these two degrees will get me far in life and hence have made plans for it ten years earlier. You know, as an educator, we have to be far-sighted and encourage students to do the same by making plans so that they will turn out well in life, just like myself. Oh, and did I mention that I have been nominated as the Best Educator of the Year and won? Wow! Isn’t that amazing? How about yourself? Are you doing great in life?”

Which person do you have a more positive impression? I believe that most of you would have a more favourable impression of Mr X rather than Mr Y. Why is this so, since both of them are basically answering our question correctly?  This is because there is humility in the response from Mr X but not so for Mr Y. Humility is one of the most powerful stimuli that one can have in a conversation, any conversations.

• Caring/Altruistic nature:  While this is often considered to be more of a feminine quality that is often preferred in females, I believe that most of us value such a quality regardless of one’s gender. A caring/quality can almost always change a person’s impression towards us. Imagine when you are at a loss when you are lost in a foreign city and someone comes forward to help you (or responds to you when you approach them for assistance). How do you feel?  Or when we are at a loss about what to do regarding certain issues and someone close to you offers (not advice) but a listening ear. How do you feel afterwards? Comforted? Reassured? A sense of having a heavy load lifted off our chests? Usually we do. Isn’t that a good feeling? Of not taking the entire load of the world upon ourselves and having others to lend a hand (or an ear)? Isn’t it great to have someone by our sides not only during our happy times but troubled/stressful times as well?  If we can be that person, we will have created one more stimulus that contributes/enhance our attractiveness as a communicator. This is especially so when guys are communicating to the ladies, since the ladies are primarily personality-based (However, there’s should be a limit as some individuals will treat us as their psychologists or counsellors, which we are not. For such cases, we have to draw a line). The converse holds true, since guys favour ladies who are caring as well. This is often not the case when we look at the conversations among males, who often consider independence and self-sustenance as stronger attributes than altruism. However, if both communication parties comprises of both gender, then a caring personality once again serves as a strong stimulus for great communication.

 

• Humour: It’s a fact that humour unites and tension divides.  I believe that most of us like a more jovial social environment than tension-filled ones. Just think of a time when we are at a party where we are enjoying ourselves and compare that to a situation when we are standing next to someone who is shouting in the phone angrily and waving his arms wildly. Which gives us a better feel? It’s human nature for us to move towards fun and laughter and steer clear of aggressive and tension-filled environment. Our minds are wired that way. This observation explains the “fight or flight” responses as dictated by the amygdalas in our brains and also serves as the basis behind the media’s and advertisers’ rationale in creating a fun and laughter-filled environment/ambience in most of their products/services. The same can be said of communications. When humour exists, personal connection exists.  I understand that there are some of us who are serious by nature. However, from personal experience, I feel that all of us are able to be humourous in some ways, although our style of humour might differ. Some techniques of being funny includes exaggeration, digressing to other irrelevant issues, pretending to be ignorant, use of funny facial expressions and appearing cartoonish. Increasing our creative prowess also enhances our sense of humour by a great deal. Try it and see. Adding this stimulus to our skillset collection is very useful in most aspects of our lives, which includes our relationships with our loved ones, working relations with colleagues/bosses and of course, not to forget its usefulness in the dating scene.

.

• Storytelling abilities: Another often neglected factor is our ability to narrate a story. I admit that each of us has a different narrative style but I also believe that each of our style works when they are further refined and polished. I always notice that the eyes of the person I am speaking to tend to brighten and stay with mine whenever I narrate a story. It is my personal belief that all if not most of us love stories. If we can provide these stories to others and make it interesting (while staying sincerely honest), it will increase our charisma as a communicator. When this happens, it is hard for others not to like us for the abovementioned reasons, since a tendency to have a favourable impression of storytellers is a natural reaction/response, and not a choice. Some ways to improve in our storytelling abilities include developing a habit to narrate stories to friends, reading more on current happenings and watching more movies while observing how the various scenes are choreographed. In a nutshell, if we are able to make a story come alive visually for our listeners, we can make our listeners come alive. And love us for it as well. It will of course be a plus if we are able to include humour in our storytelling. After all, most of us love interesting AND humourous stories, yes?

 

• Agreeableness:  While I agree that we have to be assertive at times and have our stand made known to other party despite the fact that both of us have different view points, it is important that we do not state our perspectives early in the communication process. Again, this is not an act of deception; it is merely an attempt in establishing better rapport. Once mutual rapport is achieved, we can then put our views forward without expecting any form of upfront rebuttal or rejection. This is similar to the dating scene where we flaunt our strengths rather than our flaws. Therefore, agreeableness is very important in the initial stage of any communication or correspondences (be it phone or email). It is good to note that this is only applicable when the endeavours of others is to help others and for the greater good of mankind. If it is detrimental to the betterment of mankind, we should discourage rather than support them. Although establishing and sustaining strong rapport is essential for those of us who aspire to be great and excellent communicators, ethical and moral considerations are equally if not more important. Ultimately, it’s support that people are looking for, not discouragement. Remember how our friends/parents supported us when we are stressed? This is the support that all of us are looking for in our communication process with others. However, this only applies in social functions and not so in most corporate workplaces. Having all of us agreeing on the first viewpoint put across by our colleagues is counterproductive in the workplace, since agreeableness doesn’t translate into productivity or efficiency in this context. When applied appropriately, this is one stimulus that all successful communication cannot do without.

 

• Body language: There are some aspects of body language that evoke positive responses from others naturally. This includes leaning our bodies forward to indicate an intense interest in what others are saying (which is also the reason why I wonder there are some people in senior management who prefer to sit cross-legged while leaning back on sofas  when they are on the stage engaging a group of audience in a Q & A session. This laid-back manner might backfire since audience might interpret it not as confidence but sheer indifference and/or downright arrogance. Speakers who stand and walk along the stage while talking are more charismatic speakers. While their movement might serve as a distraction, their eye contact and engagement with their audience more than compensate for it), nodding our heads in agreement (to be used in conjunction with the concept of agreeableness above), use of prompters (such as “I understand”, “I see” etc) and other positive body languages. These examples serve as tools which we can employ and use as stimuli to evoke a positive response from others in our communications. Of course, these endeavours must be sincere and not manipulative.

 

• Personality: Out of all the stimuli, this is the hardest one to describe since every single one of us has a different communicating style. What I can surmise for this stimulus is that in the process of creating a unique personality that is attractive to others, it should encompass all if not most of the above. When we have achieved that, I have the confidence to say we will already be among the best communicators in the world because on the whole, people globally respond positively to the stimuli above.

This is probably the longest article that I have written for this blog.

But I hope that the time and effort that I have put in will aid you in your communication with others and evokes the positive responses from others that will contribute to the success of your communications. If you develop the eleven factors as mentioned above, you should excel as a communicator. Don’t forget to smile and maintain eye contact as this is the first two contact point for all communications, and among the easiest to master.

Remember, how people respond to us is a reaction, and not a choice. But how we provide the right stimuli to achieve positive communications in our lives is a choice.

Our choice.

Good luck!

Appreciate and Applaud others’ efforts, even though they may make mistakes or fail you

Many of us feel appreciated and accepted by our loved ones, colleagues, teachers, supervisors,  families and communities when we work towards the greater good, helping others and enabling others to feel happier about their lives. 

Often, this is only so when things go right.

I feel that people are less attuned to appreciate or accept what we have done when things go wrong. People start blaming one another. We see this in real life and reel life, we see this in reality programs where team members blame each other, we see this in the classroom where students are blamed when they got things wrong (in the midst of setting things right) and we see this in the workplace where employees are chastised because something went wrong (in the midst of them trying to get things done and setting things right).  We seems to be living in a society where we have a strong preference for getting things right in the first place and an intense lack of tolerance for individuals caught in the situation of “messing thing up” (while all the time ignoring [sometimes by choice] of the previous things that these individuals have got it right or the contributions that they have made). In another words,  we seem to futilely pursue the art of perfectionism when we should be embracing others’ mistakes so that they are able to learn from them.

The question is why?  

This is a vital question, especially in the classroom and in the workplace. This is especially so in societies where teamwork are valued and emphasised. If the level of acceptance and appreciation is low in a team, then how does a team excel in their project, not to mention function properly? It is almost not possible. From my experience, below are some of the common reasons why acceptance and appreciation is low in some if not most societies:

• Societal/Corporate trends: While much can be attributed to our upbringing, it’s undeniable that a substantial portion of what produces and sustains our mindset to scrutinise and criticise is due to societal and corporate trends. As the adage goes, “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”. I have recently attended an educational conference and a professor has stated that most educators often emulate their teaching style after their teachers, which not be an ideal case. Thus, it’s not surprising that our supervisors in the workplace may be emulating their superiors or predecessors (whom the supervisors have taken over their position), who may – at times- not prove to be appropriate role models. And when society moves towards a trend of scepticism and criticism, most of us will probably be swept along by these waves and eventually drowned in the sea of damnation. This is more so for society whose emphasis is more focused on the sciences (where everything has to be made quantifiable and measurable). In the words of a typical corporate executive, I believe this is called a “KPI-based” or performance-based approach. Some supervisors in the workplace believe in quality and not quantity. They believe only in the final product, value the employee who gets productivity in the workplace and criticises employees who put in much more effort but gets less than the desired results. We see this often in sales.  But do we get excellent products/outcomes without putting in the necessary (and often sustained) effort? I believe that Rome wasn’t built in a day. And not all elements can be measured. How do we measure elements such as “happiness”, “creativity”, “love” and pertaining closer to the classroom, “passion for teaching”? Some things in life are just not quantifiable. This is one fallacy of a results-oriented society which pushing for constant progress but may be failing miserably in its endeavours. And the root cause of its failure lies in its inability to accept and appreciate others who aspires to work for the greater good.

 

• “Self-centric” model: Most of us in contemporary times have developed a mindset of thinking for only ourselves, something I call a “self-centric” mindset. Please note that this model is different from being selfish, which means a callous disregard for the well-being of others in the pursuit of the well-being of oneself. A person who is self-centric does care for others but prioritises himself or herself above others. It can be observed that the media and the advertising industry have a large part to play in creating this model. In a bid to increase consumerism, they have advertently or inadvertently created a somewhat individualistic culture whereby self comes before others. I have even seen an advertisement whereby a protagonist is portrayed in various scenes getting what he/she wants whenever he/she wants it. Although availability of good and service is what the advertisements want to portray, I believe it’s the message that “I get what I want whenever I want” that the audience takes away. This works against the treasured value of volunteerism and altruism, with the rates of volunteers declining over the years in some countries. Most societies – especially the more developed ones- have developed a “what’s in it for me mentality?” This is because the media and advertisers have – either advertently or inadvertently- empower the consumers (in a bid to increase their purchases) up to the point where most consumers feel that they have a right to have some kinds of benefits whenever they consume something. If they purchase a car, they have a right to have a good driving experience. If they purchase a new house, they have a right to feel comfortable in it. If they purchase a book, they have a right to get a copy of great quality. Life becomes a series of (business) transactions, and unfortunately, marriages too (“if I get married, I have a right to feel happy in this marriage and it’s my partner’s responsibility”). This perception is further reinforced by Oliver James’s “Affluenza”, where people are now defining their survival and level of happiness by their wants and not their needs, which is indeed regrettable and devastatingly damaging to the well-being of a society, any society.

 

• Comparison:  Dan Gilbert’s talk on the impact of “comparison” in our lives is indeed insightful. Indeed, we gauge the quality of most things in our lives through comparison. Any apple is a good and edible apple, until a fresher one arrives that is. Any car is a great car, unless a Rolls Royce or BMW comes along that is. Any clothes are wearable, until a fashion model comes to town to tell us about haute culture.  Comparison is impacting our lives very greatly in our contemporary society. And unfortunately, negatively as well. In the classroom, a student is compared to other students and if he or she fails to live up to expectations (often of the parent’s or their teacher’s and not their own), they are often either ostracised or ignored. “Not cut out for great things” is what some educators/parents say. But look at the great people in this world. Some of them do not have great educations or have great personalities. But they achieve great things. In the workplace, an employee gets a bad appraisal for not getting great results as compared to another employee who achieves that. But the first employee has put in much more effort and to me, this is what really matters, what is really great.  This is one of the primary reasons why the level of acceptance and appreciation is low in some societies, because they compare. And the more developed the country, the more likely that this is indeed the case (because people have more things to compare). A lady/ man is not good-looking because he/she is compared to a model. Cleaners are not wealthy because they are compared to the millionaires or the engineer next door. An employee is not good in his work performance because his/her colleagues have done better. If we were to look at each individual as a unique, distinct and special person, they are beautiful. We just have to accept them as they are. Duality reduces the level of acceptance and appreciation in us and we should strive in every moment of our lives to eliminate it. Once duality falls, we will have one less obstacles in appreciating and accepting others.

 

• Projecting our future based on our past rather than on possibilities: In Dan Gilbert’s talk above, he has mentioned that we tend to project our future based on our past and not on our possibilities. This is true since it’s easier to visualise something familiar to us or at least something we have experienced than creating something out of nowhere. We can do a little exercise. Let’s close our eyes and think of a beautiful lady or a handsome man. Now, after you have visualised this, examine the faces that you have imagined. Does that look familiar to you? It usually does because what our mind can conceive often remains constricted within our life experiences through our five senses- what we have seen, heard, smelled, tasted and touched. I will like to add the element of thought as well. Whenever we experience something in life, it creates positive/negative imprints on them and they are often indelible. Although in recent years, through the integration of science and spirituality, scientists are beginning to realise that we can somewhat rewire our “neuro circuits” in our brains, but it takes time. Sometimes lots of it. And since this endeavour requires tons of resilience and determination (considering that we are creatures of habit and creating a different “neuro-pathways” requires consistent effort),  many of us thus choose to do what the masses do: projecting our future on our past. Along a similar vein, we also project someone’s future based on their past. This explains why most ex-convicts encounter issues integrating into society. Some members of society consider the convicts’ future as somewhat bleak because of what they have done. They thus experience a strong reluctance to accept or appreciate the convicts’ efforts to rejoin society. Thus here is an opportune time to highlight this: People can change, for better or for worse depending on their lives’ circumstances. If we were to accept others’ past and appreciate their effort to do the greater good to make this world a better place, then these individuals will strive to fulfill your positive expectations. While personally, I am not one who supports the imposing of expectations, this is one of the instances where I support it since it enables someone to be a better person because there are people in the world who believe in them and expects them to do great in this world. 

 I believe that we are all able to identify with the abovementioned points and I believe that all of you have the abilities to identify other underlying causes behind the low level of acceptance and appreciation in society based on your personal experiences. The purpose of this article is not to list all the causes but rather, to use the identified caused to highlight the negative effects of not appreciating and accept someone when they are trying their best to be good.

We all do not like others to see our flaws, so why do we not start by looking at others’ strengths instead, appreciating and accepting them?

Only then can we love others as a person.