Skhadir
Strategic Business Management Includes Revenue
Ngurjar
Management Consulting, Management Development,
Hussain Zulfikar
Hris Implementation, Payroll, Recruitment,
Drukganu
Medicomarketing, Oncology
Ramachandrak62
Hr, Meditation, Yoga
Sheelnidhi
Vb, Oracle Programming
Cite Contribution
Community Manager
Tajsateesh
Recruitment/talent Acquisition, Career Counselling
Raj Kumar Hansdah
Shrm, Od, Hrd, Pms
Vkokamthankar
Asst. General Manager - Hr
Agnyeya
It, Hrm, Operations
Manishdhakan
Projects
Punya99
Sales, Marketing And Business Management
Faujishiva
Outwardbound Experiential Learning
+14 Others

What are your thoughts? I am curious because I am seeing the use of this term in posts often...
9th May 2011 From United States, Daphne
Dear Mr. Nikhil, Strong views and Ego are the two different ways. If people have no answer to our arguments they blaim our views as Ego. Regards,
9th May 2011 From India, Meerut
I appreciate the Question and would like to look at it through ORGANIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVE.

I think having STRONG VIEWS in itself can come through KNOWLEDGE & WISDOM & in a person with DEFINITIVE THOUGHT PROCESS. Such a person is bound to have 'QUALIFIED VIEWS' and a CONFIDENT PERSON would put them STRONGLY. Such a Proud person is identified with Ego (for correct reasons).

AUTHORITY gives the person every reason to have STRONGER VIEWS. Such a person is RELUCTANT to WITHDRAW or RECONCILE to OTHER'S VIEW. This OBVIOUSLY happens because an AUTHORITY being made to WITHDRAW DECISIONS or circulars would be CONSIDERED WEAK.

HERE is where EGO versus EGOISM & an EGOIST COMES in the PICTURE. I have seen many authorities STICKING TO WRONG DECISIONS just because OF FEAR OF HUMILIATION (if asked to withdraw decisions).

Being PROUD of ONESELF is NOT BAD but if the EGO goes to a level of STICKING to ones WRONG DECISIONS for protecting (FALSE) self esteem, even at the cost of hurting organizational well-being, is bad. While EGO PER SE IS NOT BAD, EGOISM DOES HARM to Individuals & Organizations.

I have seen ORGANIZATIONS CRASHING where persons having AUTHORITY WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, blended with EGOISM- A CLEAR EGOIST- were in CHARGE.

Dr Ulhas Ganu
9th May 2011 From India, Mumbai
Hello Nikhil S. Gurjar,

You raised an interesting query.

Like Dr Ulhas Ganu mentioned, Strong views come with knowledge--sometimes, sadly, with half-baked knowledge too.

Ego is absolutely different from 'strong views', yet linked to each other. Ego, to the extent I understand, has more to do with 'how one expresses' the strong views--NOT the content of what is being expressed/conveyed per se.

Let's assume I know a lot about a particular topic. I can share the info like I tell a movie story--plainly & simply; OR I can gloat to one & all that I know this stuff--directly or indirectly pointing out that not many people know what I know; OR focusing MORE ON WHAT THE OTHERS DON'T KNOW than what I know [akin to what Dr Ulhas Ganu mentions about STICKING to ones WRONG DECISIONS].

To the extent I understand human psychology, the III attitudinal response is a natural progression of the II type of response--something that develops even without the particular individual even realising it, simply because no one attempted to point out the flaw earlier. And so he/she begins to assume that THAT attitude is the right way--and hell breaks loose if, after that stage, someone tries to point it out.

Rgds,

TS
9th May 2011 From India, Hyderabad
Hello Mr.Nikhil,
I think both the concept-strong views & ego are totally different as well as inter-related.Differnt means strong views and ego has nothing to do with each other.but this difference depends on the way you express your views.sometimes people express their point of view in such a way that it shows their egoistic behaviour.In this way they are inter-related also.
Regards
Maahi
9th May 2011 From India
Greetings,
I second Sateesh. Being radical and oppressive comes in, with the territory. In business environment, I have seen very few leaders, who won 'buy-ins' not by pressure, but intellect. Rest were sheer brawns.
Being open to suggestion is often seen as low preparedness coupled with minimal knowledge. Consequently, protecting the 'turf' ends up in nasty ego fights .
Looking forward to read more views and experience on this.
Regards,
(Cite Contribution)
9th May 2011 From India, Mumbai
Strong views definitely represents EGO as it projects you as Hard liner.
If you have more knowledge or better information than presenting it with clariy of thoughts is more desired than putting across as strong views.
10th May 2011 From India, Vadodara
Interesting posts... How would one distinguish between the two? Is there an acid test?
Dr Ulhas has raised an interesting point. If the person is not making wrong decisions, you would probably call them strong views?
Taj, the 'what others don't know' syndrome is different from wrong decisions... Did I misinterpret? Please let me know.
10th May 2011 From United States, Daphne
If we will see back in history some of the rushi like Durwasa,Gautam....etc have very extreme knowledge also gr8 ego. For very silly things they cursed horrible punishment. I think EGO is side effect of extreme knowledge,grand successes and strong views. Only words are different.
10th May 2011 From India, Hyderabad
Only the perfect person can have a strong view.So it does not mean he is egoist. But that person should listen to others also.
10th May 2011 From India, Calcutta
Hello Nikhil S. Gurjar,

To answer your query: Taj, the 'what others don't know' syndrome is different from wrong decisions... Did I misinterpret?......

The answer is BOTH YES & NO. When I say 'what others don't know', pl note that I am making an 'assumption'--I may be wrong or right...depending on how well I know the person(s) I am including into the sub-set "others". If I don't know them well [maybe just acquaintances] then the assumption I make COULD obviously be a 'wrong decision' too[since it's coming from my half-baked knowledge database], in addition to the 'ego' factor [if I didn't have any ego to begin with, I wouldn't attempt to make such assumptions at all...right?].

So what we 'are' depends a lot on the circumstances we are into at that point of time--and what we do depends on what we inhenrently 'are'.

A common analogy I use is: Everyone, right from childhood, says--always speak the truth. But how many ACTUALLY FOLLOW IT when faced with a situation where they have TWO choices: to speak a lie or bluff to get over with a inconvenient/uncomfortable situation OR speak the truth & face the consequences, whatever they might be? Or like the Master @ handling such tricky situations--Krishna--does: neither speaking a lie NOR telling the truth that puts me in trouble? The situation brings out the BEST & WORST in people--for all to see many times.

Reg your understanding of the point of Dr Ulhas: "has raised an interesting point. If the person is not making wrong decisions, you would probably call them strong views?"......... I think the meaning is different.

Another analogy to get this point right: I have very strong views about ethics in HR area. Now, if I were to ask a politician or someone who is used to dealing government officials regularly, he/she would say--I am wrong. For that person, the REFERENCE POINT/PERCEPTION is: whether the work is done or not. So if the work is done, then I am right--IRRESPECTIVE of the modus operandi adopted. But from my perspective, the REFERENCE POINT is on 'HOW' was the work done & NOT JUST ON whether the work was done or not--BOTH ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT.

Not sure if I conveyed the point to your satisfaction--but like I mentioned earlier, 'strong views' are essentially the base/source [which emanate from the scale/level of knowledge one has, like mentioned by others too earlier], while 'wrong decisions' are AMONG the culminations/consequences of APPLICATION of the strong views [pl note that NOT all applications end in wrong decisions].

Rgds,

TS
10th May 2011 From India, Hyderabad
A person with a strong view should be nurtured and developed in an organisation as he can make a good manager too atleast in financial terms. He can keep his flocks under control by being a bit authoritative.
As a manager, if i talk in phone, persons who work under me copy it and do the same. Hence it becomes very hard when we be friendly as people take advantage and ask for lot of favours.
So to get better productivity these people who are stubborn are required. Afterall an employer is not a non profit entity.
Srini
10th May 2011 From India, Mumbai
I totally agree with the views of Dr Ulhas Ganu. Fantastically explained. Ego is STICKING TO WRONG DECISIONS just because OF FEAR OF HUMILIATION or PROTECTING (False) SELF ESTEEM. Anoop
10th May 2011 From India, Delhi
The topic is developing in to a very interesting one, raising more pertinent questions.



The 'STRONG EXPRESSION' of the view, is a function of CONFIDENCE the person has, (to express views without fear of backlash) and LACK of STRONG EXPRESSION of his/her views goes with DIFFIDENCE (what if I am wrong & others laugh at me?).



For lawful activities, RIGHT OR WRONG is a PERCEPTION depending on the PERSON/PARTIES & HOW THEY ARE GOING TO GET AFFECTED vis-a-vis benefits or loss he/she is looking at. Hence I personally feel, ONE NEEDS to DISTINGUISH 'RIGHT or WRONG' views from STRONG VIEWS.



To see it all in the light of current topic, we see



1. Almost all the participants in this discussion have expressed STRONG VIEWS on the Topic.

2. This is done without embarrassing anybody, means everybody's EGO has been RESPECTED. (ALL DISCUSSANTS HERE HAVE EGO for sure)

3. They also desired to know more from others, (HUMBLENESS), & possibly would modify or change ones view (HEALTHY ATTITUDE)

4. Moderator DOES NOT FORCE a VIEW (NON-DOGMATIC, Very Healthy Web Site)



This brings us to refer the dictionary meaning of DOGMA: Authoritative, Arrogant Assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.



That I feel comes close to difference between GARVA (meaning PROUD) as against ABHIMAAN (meaning SELF RESPECT, a good attribute) as perceived by us in our languages.



It indeed is becoming more difficult to define as THERE CANNOT BE a 'GOOD EGO or a BAD EGO'.



Thus like WATER, which has NO COLOUR of its own but Gets the Colour with which it is mixed, EGO cannot have its own COLOUR but WOULD TAKE THE COLOUR of HOW it is EXPRESSED by the INDIVIDUALS.



It would help if one can distinguish 'GOOD EGO & BAD EGO' with perfect single words.



Thanks to all & especially Nikhil for starting such a wonderful topic.



Dr Ulhas Ganu
10th May 2011 From India, Mumbai
I second saroj. aslong as person is ready to accept others views as well justify or convince his views to others. So this person is receptive in nature. A person with receptive nature cannot be termed as egoistic
10th May 2011 From India, Bangalore
Dear All,
Its a very interesting thread, filled with knowledgeable information. I recommend this thread for STUDENTS as CASE STUDY. While respecting individual's perception level. i would like to participate to the best of my knowledge.

1) A PERSON WITH STRONG VIEWS - if views are GENUINE, BASED ON HONESTY, FACT, TRUTH, then that wise person cannot be considered as EGOIST unless he is open for DISCUSSIONS, should believe in convincing individuals where he may take support of examples, etc., but, should neither ARGUE or PROMOTE ARGUMENTS.

2) A WISE PERSON will try to withdraw his presence if, opponents/audience arguments are baseless, trying to deviate from the topic or there may be chances for exchanging INFORMAL VIEWS/HEATED DISCUSSIONS then, HE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EGOIST.

TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN EGOISTIC AND NON EGOISTIC PERSON - ACID TEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EGOISTIC PERSON
-----------------
EGO is a MINDSET(state of mind) and also known as an ATTITUDE - MENTAL PROCESS but, when it takes a PHYSICAL SHAPE, you can see people getting angry, shouting at others, arguing, loosing self-control....At times EGOISTIC PEOPLE DO SUPPORT WRONG DECISIONS.

The best friend of EGO is ANGER, SUPERIORITY COMPLEX, PROUD of KNOWLEDGE/WEALTH/EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS/ACHIEVEMENTS and SELFISHNESS.

NON-EGOISTIC PERSON
----------------------
To my knowledge i consider him as a WISE MAN. Having total SELF-CONTROL. will never promote WRONG DECISIONS nor participates in such debates. He'll try his best to converse, convey and communicate effectively. If he finds things getting out of control, he may compromise wisely or quit wisely and he may also allow his opponents to win because he knew that he is not going to lose anything.

STRONG VIEWS cannot be based on SUPERIORITY COMPLEX, PROUD, REFLECTING ANGER.

VIEWS ARE VIEWS whether they are STRONG, AUTHENTIC/GENUINE, LESS-KNOWLEDGEABLE, BASELESS but again when one perceives written information, if not addressed politely, we consider and conclude that, respondent as EGOISTIC. Also, it may be one of the factors, but it cannot be taken for granted all the time.

Its better, one always remain DOWN TO EARTH, POLITE to avoid EGO and its associated factors affecting our ATTITUDE/BEHAVIOUR closely and deeply associated with our CHARACTER..

The one who gains total control on ANGER can never be an EGOISTIC PERSON.

With profound regards
10th May 2011 From India, Chennai
Well I feel ego is cognitive and strong view is based on aquired knowledge. how it is used is personal. capt sivva
10th May 2011 From India, Madras
Hi Seniors, Experts and Readers
I enjoied this discusion very much, this two aspects are very dominant in our lives. A person with Strong views is often presented as Egoistic, explanations given here are very enlighting.
I have seen and experienced blunderous decisions people made sheerly out of ego and to protect thier pride, Ego is a Silent social evil.
I m not an expert in this case study. I m enjoying the knowledge shared by wonderful people here.
Hussain
10th May 2011 From Kuwait, Salmiya
Hello Hussain Zulfikar,
That's what CiteHR is all about--sharing just for the reason of sharing, without any expectations. Isn't it?
Enjoy yourself--while at the same time, gaining & learning from others' mistakes/experiences.
There's a Quote:The wise learn from others' experiences, while the fools don't even learn from their's.
Rgds,
TS
10th May 2011 From India, Hyderabad
Helllo
Quite an interesting reading....from an HR perspective....if ur strong views are pushed causing no harm to other stakeholders then well we need to take it a strong acceptable view...someone needs to put a foot down somewhere or lse in this "let me please everyone" psyche, decisions tend to suffer...if u r opushing ur string views despite knowing that certain people will be rubbed wrong way without being deserving of such an act.......well EGO comes into picture...
11th May 2011 From India, Mangaluru
Seniors and Seniors, read the subject again and lets not be egoist. Nikhil S. Gurjar askd Is a person with strong views an egoist?
We tend to avoid the word egoist in our discussion and substitute with an egoistic person. WRONG dwell on "strong views" & "egoist" if u do understand.
11th May 2011 From Kenya, Nairobi
Dear All

The topic "Is a person with strong views an egoist"

- A person with a strong views cannot be straightaway considered or concluded as egoist. The question here is, whether the person having strong views is trying to force his views and ideas on others is what matters. This alone can decide whether a person with strong views an egoist. The answer cannot be given in general. When a person tries to put his views and ideas forcibly on others, it is only then he can be called an egoist. If a persons views are acceptable to others in a team, in a group or to a mass, then he is not considered as egoist. When a person's views are right or wrong, whether that person is egoistic or not depends on the people who follow him and not otherwise. so to conclude in simple terms, whether a person is egoistic or not depends on the acceptance and concurence of the followers or team members in accepting him without any conditions.

Also a person may have strong views on his own ideas or his understanding and he may not force his ideas on others. Such persons hold on to their own idealogies - such persons cannot be called as egoists and it is their life and way.

Hope this also gives the answer to concern raised by Mr rnest12

Regards

K.Ramachandra

Bangalore
11th May 2011
If everyone starts thinking POSITIVE and perceiving things POSITIVE then, i am sure no one will ever find anything that sound's or look like NEGATIVE..If it sounds or look like NEGATIVE then, its your mental feeling, MAKING YOU FEEL NEGATIVE.
Better we change our PERCEPTION LEVEL if you want see everything beautiful, though it is a beautiful world.
LEARN TO CONTROL YOUR BRAIN.......THE KEY TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL LIFE

With profound regards
11th May 2011 From India, Chennai
From my point of view dear.
Those who considered a strong view to be egoist are actually insane, they never give a person support but only try to pull legs of a person who is having strong thought. They know that they are not capable enough to give and take good decision which will fruit-full for the organization. SO they said every where that the guy is very egoistic in nature and they dont wont to work with him/her.
Comments are welcome !!!!!!!!
sulabh Gupta
11th May 2011 From India, Delhi
It all dpends upon the person who is viewing you. If he is a positive person, he will understand the authentisity of your views,if he is narrow minded, he will paint you as a egoist. But always care should be taken by the people who have strong views to express them politely. They should put forward their arugment without a tint of arogance.
11th May 2011 From India, Hyderabad
Dear All,
In my view if the person is having a strong view with authentically right, he will always show a path but if a person is egoistic he will force others to walk on what he said.
Knowledgeable person always show the right thing to do firmly and give freedom to the person how to do it he never tries to force anyone to walk behind him.
Person with strong view will always welcome the ideas of the others and sticking to his own view will make necessary changes to gain the best from his view.
While egoistic person will always stick what he said and always thing that he is right.Hardly gives respect to others & always tries to show off.
11th May 2011 From India, Ahmadabad
  • Very interesting and thought provoking discussion. Adding my bit of opinion, may be in a summarized form and may be same as that of many other members.
  • Having strong views, based on knowledge, wisdom and experience is alright, but one has to be open to ideas from others and change the views if need be. Need not stonewall, ignore, ridicule or rubbish other's views. One needs to be open to explain why he or she holds a particular view. Otherwise you run a risk of being labeled as egoistic.
  • Perceptions of others matter a lot. Somebody may perceive you as a person with strong views and egoistic as well since you didn't bother to explains your views to satisfy his ego.
  • I feel there is good ego as well as bad ego. Knowledge, Confidence, Success can make you egoistic. You will be having a good ego as long as you are not hurting others and their ego. Moment somebody feels hurt, he or she will perceive you as a egoistic person in a negative sense.
  • So there are chances that, often your strong views will be perceived as ego, whereas you strongly perceive yourself as a non-egoistic.

11th May 2011 From India, Pune
This is making it more interesting...
So, friends, is ego a 'reflective' phenomenon? Or is it 'intrinsic'?
Some of the people went on to indicate 'good' and 'bad' decisions and 'forcing' people to accept their views. Even if forcing is for the benefit of the company, especially while dealing with change management, is it still something to be factored in while considering ego?
The more I read through, the more contrasting the views. SAK talked about positive and negative... You might still have ego even with positive thoughts. Am I wrong? The acid test seems to be perceptive rather than objective.
Now another question for (Cite Contribution) and Taj, is there a model using Id, Ego and Superego in TA similar to the PAC (Parent, Adult, Child) model? Because the TA situation actually focuses more on the circumstances rather than intrinsic character to start with... later delves deeper into each factor... Just curious, are we heading the same way in this discussion?
11th May 2011 From United States, Daphne
Hello Nikhil S. Gurjar,
Now this is getting to get more deeper.....maybe all of us would be vying with the great Philosophers :-)

Again YES. Every religion has similar, if not identical, way of looking @ the situations in a holistic way. There's a reason why 'TA situation actually focuses more on the circumstances rather than intrinsic character to start with'. A normal/average human being can only understand what he/she can see/touch/hear/smell/taste [basically what can be measured thru the 5 senses]--mind you, 'intellect' comes much later. So if one were to talk to such a person what has been discussed in this Forum so far, would he/she understand a thing? No way.
But at the same time the Masters who propounded the different philosophical lines of thought know it's such people who actually need the philosophy MORE--a sort of contradiction, but an unavoidable or inevitable one. The only way to make such a crowd to begin to take interest in knowing themselves would be to talk in THEIR language--what they will find easier to understand. And when they get going in that path, things get more & more deeper....like you mentioned:"later delves deeper into each factor..". It's only now that psychologists have devised ways of measuring this aspect in human nature--thru what we now call "Spiritual Quotient [SQ]", as opposed to IQ & EQ until recently.
I recollect one Master's quote: "I am giving you what you want now, in the hope that you will want what I have got to give you". Miracles form a part of this process/methodology.


Maybe a bit of heavy stuff--couldn't get any simpler.

Rgds,
TS
11th May 2011 From India, Hyderabad
Hello Nikhil S. Gurjar,

I think there was some mix-up in my posting yesterday [some lines got missed out & some got jumbled]--hence reposting it again below.

Now this is getting to get more deeper.....maybe all of us would be vying with the great Philosophers :-)

To answer your queries/comments to the best of what I know/can......

So, friends, is ego a 'reflective' phenomenon? Or is it 'intrinsic'?

It's more 'intrinsic' to begin with, while what the outside world sees in that individual would be the manifestation of that 'intrinsic' quality--which you termed as ''reflective phenomenon'. Howsoever much the individual tries to mask/hide his/her intrinsic basic nature, it is bound to get externally manifested at some point of time--and the manifestation can be vocal, non-vocal or thru thought.

An example of manifestation of this phenomenon/aspect in human nature would be: quite a few of us sometimes 'feel' comfortable when we meet anyone new right from the first time--even without knowing anything about that new person. Sometimes, it's the other way round.


Some of the people went on to indicate 'good' and 'bad' decisions and 'forcing' people to accept their views. Even if forcing is for the benefit of the company, especially while dealing with change management, is it still something to be factored in while considering ego?

The more I read through, the more contrasting the views. SAK talked about positive and negative... You might still have ego even with positive thoughts. Am I wrong? The acid test seems to be perceptive rather than objective.

Yes....you are right. One can have an ego even with positive thoughts.

For eg, let's take a case of a person who has the true habit/nature of helping others WITHOUT any hesitation or expectation. If he helps with the hope/motive of BEING NOTICED, then such a person always tries to place himself/herself in situations where the exposure of the 'helping act' is MAXIMUM. This is one form of EGO--even though it doesn't cause anyone any harm, it does minimize the effect/result of his/her helping nature. That's what the Bhagavat Gita means when it says: Perform action without any expectation of the result.

If this person doesn't care whether anyone notices or not his/her helping nature, or even goes one step further--making conscious efforts to ensure NO ONE NOTICES his/her acts of helping, then that's what the religious texts term as the true believer. This attitude can go still one step further: he/she can do his helping deeds in FULL PUBLIC GLARE--but yet not get effected whatsoever [in Hindu texts such a person is termed as 'karma yogi'].


Now another question for (Cite Contribution) and Taj, is there a model using Id, Ego and Superego in TA similar to the PAC (Parent, Adult, Child) model? Because the TA situation actually focuses more on the circumstances rather than intrinsic character to start with... later delves deeper into each factor... Just curious, are we heading the same way in this discussion?

Again YES. Every religion has similar, if not identical, way of looking @ the situations in a holistic way. There's a reason why 'TA situation actually focuses more on the circumstances rather than intrinsic character to start with'. A normal/average human being can only understand what he/she can see/touch/hear/smell/taste [basically what can be measured thru the 5 senses]--mind you, 'intellect' comes much later. So if one were to talk to such a person what has been discussed in this Forum so far, would he/she understand a thing? No way.

But at the same time the Masters who propounded the different philosophical lines of thought know it's such people who actually need the philosophy MORE--a sort of contradiction, but an unavoidable or inevitable one. The only way to make such a crowd to begin to take interest in knowing themselves would be to talk in THEIR language--what they will find easier to understand. And when they get going in that path, things get more & more deeper....like you mentioned:"later delves deeper into each factor..". It's only now that psychologists have devised ways of measuring this aspect in human nature--thru what we now call "Spiritual Quotient [SQ]", as opposed to IQ & EQ until recently.

I recollect one Master's quote: "I am giving you what you want now, in the hope that you will want what I have got to give you". Miracles form a part of this process/methodology.


Maybe a bit of heavy stuff--couldn't get any simpler.

Any comments? Both bouquets or brickbats are OK with me....part of MY learning process.

Rgds,

TS
12th May 2011 From India, Hyderabad
Strong View - it depends on person to person. Because " you are responsible for what you are, and whatever you wish yourself to be, you have the power to make yourselves. If what you are now has been the result of your own past actions, it certainly follows that whatever you wish to be in future can be produced your present actions; so you have to know how to act". In this statement you are so strong and behave the way because you think, it is the right path. So nobody can blame you for this strongness - it is not connected with Ego.
Suppose, you are heading a department, because of that "position:" you have the view that whatever you say is to follow by others.... that is an
ego, it is "ahankara", This is sin and abuse to the position.
This is my view.
R.Pithambaran
09421248119.
12th May 2011 From India, Kolhapur
A very good question...!!
Despite the fact the two mental positions are different, there is a very thin margin of difference between two, especially the observer cannot distiguish mostly when you do not know the personality.
I feel this is a very good topic for an HR research.
Punya
12th May 2011 From Sri Lanka, Panadura
If the world has only MR & MRS perfects then we need not be having few thing like manners, behaviors,learning,teaching and other stuffs... life is with all mix and match coming to the point of EGO ..... i wanted to ask u all what will a person gain if he shows EGO ??? is that peoples attention or respect nope nothing .....well i said what was in my mind....
12th May 2011 From Saudi Arabia, Riyadh
I liked the example & quote by Tajsateesh: ‘This is one form of EGO--even though....... That's what the Bhagavat Gita means when it says: Perform action without any expectation of the result’. That is the way it should be………

However, for one person saying this, there are 100s of modern day consultants who insist that ‘BLOW your OWN TRUMPET or others would use it as a SPITTOON’ and THOUSANDS, who believe them. Hence we see a lot of TRUMPET BLOWERS AROUND who want to push forward, and many a times succeed in corporate scenario.

The elaboration by Tajsateesh on ‘UNDERSTANDING by the MASSES based on PERCEPTION by 5 SENSES’ & its Limitation is classic. The strong believer in these 5 physical senses (as seen by him) may claim, (e.g.) Lake Water as ‘PURE’ based on taste & vision (to the naked eye) whereas a microscopic observation (MAGNIFIED VIEW) may show presence of harmful bacteria. In the same way ‘SEEING BEYOND’ the 5 PHYSICAL SENSES in Life (SPIRITUAL SENSE) would serve well for the MASSES. Again, ONE MUST AGREE with TAJSATEESH that to do it, ONE HAS to talk to them in LANGUAGE UNDERSTOOD BY THEM. Thus the PROCESS OF ‘IMPROVEMENT in UNDERSTANDING THROUGH DISCUSSIONS’ is as IMPORTANT as DESTINATION (the UNDERSTANDING itself).

Coming to the CORPORATE SCENE, we see the 4 major types of MANAGERS (Likert’s Leadership Styles) being described as ‘EXPLOITIVE- AUTHORITATIVE’, ‘BENEVOLENT- AUTHORITATIVE’, ‘CONSULTATIVE’ & ‘PARTICIPATIVE’ in nature. The FIRST THREE TYPES ESSENTIALLY RUN their OWN AGENDA. However, they are PERCEIVED DIFFERENTLY by SUBORDINATES.

Thus EGO is indeed a matter of PERCEPTION (like BEAUTY, which Resides in the EYES of the BEHOLDER and NOT the OBJECT) & hence the Pundits wisely did not classify ‘Good Ego’ (as ‘Bona fide’ or ‘Pal’ Ego’) & ‘Bad Ego’ (as ‘Mala fide’ as ‘mal- Ego’) leaving the BRANDING to the- shall we say- ‘BENEFACIERY’ or the ‘SUFFERERS’.

Dr Ulhas Ganu
12th May 2011 From India, Mumbai
Dear Readers,
Having strong views on something amounts to "ego" when somebody tries to impose their views on others. Or else, every individual has every right to have strong opinion on any matter. By the by, while taking decisions in organizations the leader has to consider the opinions of other members. Otherwise, the leader will be considered an egotist and domineering.
12th May 2011 From India, Madurai
Ulhas and Taj,
Thanks. It is interesting because there are a lot of people in this forum who use these terms, yet the clarity seems to differ significantly.
Is ego the same as rigidity? If your subordinate doesn't want to follow (and practically works on another agenda), he is 'imposing' his view by being rigid (or lazy)... Is that also ego? I have seen this, although have never experienced it with my folks so far...
Just curious. Because I am a little uncomfortable with subjective manifestations of such concepts... :-)
13th May 2011 From United States, Daphne
Very interesting question, on the basis of which many communication transactions occur daily.
EGOIST:sense of existence, closely related to self-esteem.
Assuming there are 2 types of communication senders :
1. Those whose sense of self and esteem is linked to their views.
2. and those .. is not linked..
This gives rise to the following scenarios :
Sender is Type 1 and is correctly perceived as EGOIST by the receiver
Speaker is Type 1 and is incorrectly perceived as correct by the receiver
Speaker is Type 2 and is incorrectly perceived as EGOIST by the receiver
Speaker is Type 2 and is correctly perceived as correct by the receiver
If body language/other non-verbal communication is not involved this gives rise to 50 % probability of incorrect perception.
With other non-verbal communication being involved, the incorrect perception percentage should decrease (how much ???).
13th May 2011 From India, Mumbai
Hello Nikhil S. Gurjar,

You aren't alone in the confusion/misinterpretation of the words 'ego' & 'rigidity'.

Let's put it this way: 'ego' is the "cause" & 'rigidity' is the "result" or, in philosophical nomenclature, the "manifestation". Going further backwards, ego is again generated by other causes--it's sort of a chain. We just notice a few links in the chain & make our judgements/conclusions--something like the 4 blind men & the Elephant story.

While this Thread has focused on 'strong views' & 'knowledge' vis-a-vis 'ego', ego doesn't necessarily have to emanate only from knowledge. The oft-repeated/used word in most religions/philosophies around the world for the cause of 'ego' in a person is: possession(s).

How many of us haven't seen a rich brat showing off his riches which, NOT him, but his parents might have earned--as if he/she were 10 Bill Gates rolled into one? How many of us haven't seen a politician throwing his/her weight around, just because of the power he/she holds, albeit briefly? How many of us haven't seen people behaving like they own the world when they would be just owning a few thousands of acres of land? One can on & on giving such examples.

The fact of the matter remains: There's nothing 100% bad or 100% good. What finally matters is THE BALANCE between the different possessions one has in life--or to put it in another way: BALANCE between one's WANTS & one's NEEDS. Like the old saying goes: too much is too bad. Whether it's money or knowledge or land or just about any possession, if one has more than what he/she NEEDS [which is different from 'wants'], at some point of time it would, most likely lead to 'EGO' in most people--which manifests in different ways like I mentioned above. The way it manifests in one person doesn't necessarily have to match with the way it manifests in someone else--though, if we notice carefully, the underlying cause could essentially be the same.

Rgds,

TS
14th May 2011 From India, Hyderabad
DEAR READERS,
THERE IS A SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. STRONG VIEWS WITH
ADAMANCY IS CALLED EGO. ONE CAN'T SAY ONE'S VIEW IS ALWAYS CORRECT.
BECAUSE, OUR VIEWS BECOMES CORRECT ONLY WHEN OUR OBJECTIVE IS
ACHIEVED. OUR VIEWS COULD NEITHER BE PROVED OR DISPROVED IN A LAB. AS
EVERYBODY KNOWS MANAGEMENT IS NEITHER SCIENCE NOR ARTS, VALIDITY OF
OUR VIEWS DEPENDS ON THE RESULT.
CHANDRASEKARAN, MADURAI.
- Show quoted text -
14th May 2011 From India, Madurai
Practically speaking, EGO is universally present, & it is MANIFESTED as RIGIDITY, the DEGREE of which VARIES according to the situation. It is possible that many a times a junior would tell the boss 'SIR YOU ARE RIGHT' (half the sentence) the Latter UNHEARD part of the sentence being BECAUSE YOU ARE THE BOSS. (Situation Prevails)

Long ago I read an interesting description of an INDIVIDUAL'S THOUGHT PROCESS about a situation or a point: There are FOUR POSSIBLE CASES......
  1. I KNOW (that) I KNOW
  2. I KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW
  3. I DON'T KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW &
  4. I DON'T KNOW (that) I KNOW
With 'I KNOW (that) I KNOW' (Knowledgeable) & 'I DON'T KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW' (commenting upon everything around but seen as Stupidity by society) the INDIVIDUAL (BOTH types) would be clearly RIGID. Here the BRANDING of EGOISTIC is bound to come.

In case of individuals with acceptance of 'I KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW' & 'I DON'T KNOW (that) I KNOW' the RIGIDITY would be ABSENT. Here the individual's EGOISTIC nature would not be visible as the PERSON doesn't FLAUNT it. (In fact the I Don't Know I Know BEHAVIOUR is a STUMBLING BLOCK in that Individuals Progress).

Somehow I feel compelled to compare it to TEMPERATURE & FEVER in HUMANS. A range of 97.6 F to 98.8 F (35.5 C to 37.00 C) axillary teperature is considered NORMAL. ABOVE this is FEVER or a PHYSIOLOGICALLY ABNORMAL CONDITION.

All RICH DON'T FLAUNT their WEALTH through Jewellery. Thus THERE SEEMS to be A THRESHOLD for these things in the MIND of PEOPLE.

Similarly DEGREE of EXPRESSION of EGO (which POSSIBLY is UNIVERSAL) makes for BRANDING of someone as EGOIST.

As observed by Nikhil, the RIGIDITY or LAZYNESS of an ASSOCIATE is not new.

A friend of mine always used to say 'HUMANS are PROGRAMMED to FAIL' and 'to SUCCEED, they must make SPECIAL EFFORTS'. Associates who do not believe in 'Seniors Plans' may not launch fully in the work (EGO?) or BEING LAZY (INERTIA) would NOT PARTICIPATE Wholeheartedly.

Thus EGOIST is a Product Mix of Many a Factors and A PERSISTENT BEHAVIOUR PATTERN of an Individual over a Period of Time (and not an isolated event), which Brings the Branding.

It was wonderful participating in the discussion, with opinions pouring in, and I could relate to many situations seen over 4 plus decades....

Regards

Dr Ulhas Ganu
14th May 2011 From India, Mumbai
"Having strong views" and being an "egoist" are two different things.

An egoist may not have strong views on anything. Here I wish to distinguish between "pushing one's views - whether substantial or not, or wishes or whims; strongly upon the others" and having dedication or commitment towards certain views.

An egoist will push his views on others; whether or not he knows anything much about what he knows or believes in.

Having strong views implies that a person is committed to those views. For example, a person may have strong views about "vegetarianism", "anti-smoking", "corruption" etc.

Hope the distinction is amply clear.

I shall illustrate it further with few examples.
Anna Hazare has strong views against corruption.
But is he an "egoist" ??

Similarly, Mahatma Gandhi had strong views on "Ahimsa (Non-violence)" and "Truth".
But, can we call him an "egoist" ?

There are other examples too:
Adolf Hitler had strong views on the "supremacy of his race"; and on "Jews" and he was also an "egoist" !!
Your boss my not know about anything or any issues; but he may force you to do something, out of his ego and the power he holds over you.

I hope it helps clarify the matter and put these terms in their proper perspective.
Warm regards.
16th May 2011 From India, Delhi
good question dear,
A STRONG VIEW FROM A PERSON IS NOT AN EGO. IF OTHERS THINK HIS VIEW IS GOOD THEN IT LOOKS GOOD . IF IT IS NOT LIKED BY SOME ONE ITS CALLED AS EGO.. ITS REALLY DEPEND ON THE THOUGHT OF THE OTHERS HOW OTHERS UNDERSTAND..
16th May 2011 From India, Guntur
  • Strong Views, Ego and Rigidity etc. all very often go hand in hand though all have a different meaning and the contest of situation will also matter a lot.These words needs to be used very carefully.
  • Chances are there that a person with no views can also be egoistic. Somebody has already suggested it.
  • One never calls oneself as egoistic. It is often the opinion of others about the one based on individual perceptions, experiences and circumstances.
  • Dr. Ulhas Ganu has brought in very important point of 'threshold'. Based on individual threshold levels and other circumstances someone is labeled as egoistic. But as said by Dr. Ganu, there will be lot of variation in individuals threshold levels.

16th May 2011 From India, Pune
Interesting discussion. I guess Taj and Ulhas have given a lot of perspective and Raj has helped refine it a lot...
I had a discussion with a client and he called me a 'sophisticated bully!' He said that I never entered into verbal fights but I had so strong views and even stronger substantiation that the front person got 'bullied' by it as he had limited choice but to accept the strong logic... Guess I am on the thin-line after I re-read the posts :-)
16th May 2011 From United States, Daphne
Hello Nikhil

I can understand what the client feels and why.

You must be a person with WELL MODULATED VOICE, a STRONG TONE of a CONFIDENT PERSON WHO KNOWS his SUBJECT WELL, and HAS ART of PREPARING EVIDENCE BASED PRESENTATIONS (with references) so that NO ONE CAN NULLIFY the ARGUMENT or PROPOSITION. Since yours is a CLIENT & Not An Employer-Employee Relationship and still he wanted to continue with you, to me it is like his wanting to 'HAVING A ROSE WITHOUT THE THORNS'.

As A Scientist we were always ENCOURAGED by our Boss to SPEAK on TOPICS of DISCUSSION OPENLY and FEARLESSLY & EXPRESS OUR OPINIONS.

As CONSULTANT in CORPORATES, I FOUND that the CEOs, MD or CHAIRMAN have their own (HIDDEN) AGENDA (as we never know the real prices or profit margins). If they PROPOSE a POINT which is OPPOSED (by Honest & Committed People PRIMED by BROUGHT UP FROM PRIME INSTITUTIONS) they get UNCOMFORTABLE. The Insult many a times is Not So Much in Failing but Rather It Being Known by People, who may laugh.

We had similar problems with our customers. I had a discussion with my colleague, Gopal Iyer on this and we branded the Syndrome with MNEMONIC as 'ACHES' (A: Ability, C: Commitment, H: Honesty, & E for that uninhibited Expression by us which was sometimes uncomfortable to clients in open meetings but not so when talked one to one as his/her EGO is not attacked in front of juniors). The S represented Success for which to accrue, the ACHE is necessary.

Then we decided a policy to have personal brief with top management (CEO or MD) before Group Meeting to refine the agenda.

In Medicine Pain is a NON-PARAMETRIC PARAMETER as THRESHOLDS of different People Vary. They can not be analyzed STATISTICALLY. These can be converted to PARAMETRIC (Measurable) by a SCALE. There are many Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) to express Pain or Heat by Patients.

This discussion and your observations of Borderline EGO prompted me to try & develop a Scale for EGO. I have used Prof. Ravi's Poovia's (IIT) Signage for it. They are fantastic (great job). I dont know if all symbols I used are apt in EGO SCALE but could be closer to the meaning. (There in no copyright on it).

Dr Ulhas Ganu
19th May 2011 From India, Mumbai
Hi Ulhas,
Interesting post. I was referring to a one-to-one with the CEO/MD... and this was his observation :-)
But I liked the framework. Let me see if I can use it effectively. Thanks for sharing that.
Reg,
Nikhil
19th May 2011 From United States, Daphne
Dear Nikhil ,
I converted this page into a PDF. Its a white paper now :)
If you want to access the same for any other threads here's the path:
Go to the printable option, get the content in one page , saved HTML version on Desktop , changed it on PDF !
Congrats to everyone who contributed !!!!
Regards,
(Cite Contribution)
19th May 2011 From India, Mumbai

Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: pdf CiteHR Human Resource Management - Is a person with strong views an egoist .pdf (326.0 KB, 121 views)

That was a beautiful idea (Cite Contribution).
But the flow could have been more consistent if irrelevant postings [like that of kavitabhatia30--asking 'how to post a new thread'] could have been deleted in the PDF.
Neverthless, a nice thing to save for future, I would say :-)
Rgds,
TS
19th May 2011 From India, Hyderabad
Add Reply Start A New Discussion

Cite.Co - is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors. Register Here and help by adding your inputs to this topic/query page.
Prime Sponsor: TALENTEDGE - Certification Courses for career growth from top institutes like IIM / XLRI direct to device (online digital learning)





About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2019 Cite.Co™