The whys of life….

* Why don’t we feel excited when we learn something new?

* Why don’t we admit in front of colleagues, friends, family that we don’t know something and wish to learn it?

* Why have we stopped asking questions, remember when we were young, we had so many questions to ask, as we grew older and older, we tend to ask fewer and fewer questions. Are we ashamed of being ridiculed or just that we know too much?

* Why don’t we appreciate others for their good and celebrate with them in their joy more often.

* Why don’t we go to friends’ house, without calling beforehand?

* Why do we send text messages to our spouses telling “I LOVE YOU”, when we can say it in as many words.

* Why don’t we appreciate our kids’ low marks as a sign of learning rather than being left out of the competition?

* Why do we wear mask in front of others, when we know that they know it’s a mask (a mask interacting to a mask).

Leadership development is going nowhere fast

It has not been hard over the past few weeks to pick out the negative or critical of the HR function, especially when it comes to leadership development. The 2008/9 DDI Global Leadership Forecast1, which surveyed over 13,000 HR professionals and business leaders throughout the world, found that “leadership development is going nowhere fast.” This is compounded by further observations that include decreasing confidence in senior leaders who lack basic skills from 47% in 99 to 35% in 07 for senior leaders and from 42% to 25% for front line leaders.

The survey also finds that organizations are poor at leadership selection, have ineffective talent identification programmes and poor succession planning. A further alarming tendency highlighted in this survey is that HR and managers are locked in a spiraling circle of blame as each blames the other for failures in leadership development. Where development programmes do exist there is a lack of effective measurement of their impact.

This focus on quantifying the HR impact is a common theme these days; however the difficulty in linking or measuring the impact of strategy on performance is highlighted by Kim Warren 2, who hits the nail on the head by stating that this will not be possible until the influence of intangibles on performance is fully understood.

Reflections 08-09

I am completing one year in Saudi Arabia next month, thought I shall share my thoughts and my success with all my friends and family members who have made this transition possible. More importantly, how did I fare on my Intellectual Capital, Financial Capital & Happiness Capital is described below.

Intellectual Capital (IC): One the biggest gain for me this year has been going thru Strengths’ Finder test from Gallup series. This has enlightened me about my strengths (while I knew of some of them) and how do I put them in real use (thanks to Naveen, for being my coach). Working on Managers’ Development Process (designing, developing and implementing the competency based leadership development initiatives, development centers etc.,) has been a fulfilling effort for me. Also meeting people from different parts of the world in ALJ has opened my mind to different cultures and styles of working.

Financial Capital (FC): Well generally I tend to ignore the FC whenever I take up a new role for the meat of the role. I ended up clearing all my backlogs with the job in hand and that made my mind lighter and pocket heavier. I will be saving for my son’s education and our winter days this year onwards (my wife and parents will be happy to know that).

Happiness Capital (HC): I have always been happy in each and every job assignment that I have done. The joy of seeing work being appreciated by one and all after all the hard work is something I cherish during my Managers’ Development Process Development Centers execution. I have seen my son grow older and naughtier by 1year.

While I miss my Bangalore, my family, friends I am happy to have spent more time with my Wife and Son, being here, than back home where I would have had to spend time in office and trainings.

What about things not gone right? Well when I landed in this country, the initial 3 months were very crucial for me get settled down fast. While I didn’t get to do what I was hired far, but the work I am doing so far has been like a blessing in disguise.

I also had plans of setting up some sort of charitable institution to build guest houses for poor in a Ganesha Temple near Mangalore, couldn’t progress much in that direction.

On a concluding note, I have grown as a matured individual, as a doting father, as a loving husband and a dutiful son in this last one year. I will cherish this and will have to be really thankful to all the support, guidance, wishes I have received by one and all in this journey.

HR TRADITIONALLY FOCUSES ON COSTS BUT INCREASING REVENUE IS MORE STRATEGIC

One area that is important to address when defining the strategic role of HR is HR’s historic emphasis on cutting costs. While cutting costs are important there are several reasons why it is essential that HR shift its focus away from cost cutting and towards increasing output and revenues.

Every major corporation strives to increase its profits; however in striving to meet that goal it is important to realize that there are two distinct parts of any profit loss equation, revenue and costs. A business can increase profits into basic ways: first, by reducing costs and second, by increasing revenue (either by charging more or selling more). HR has traditionally focused almost exclusively on the cost cutting portion of the equation, quite possibly because cutting people cost is relatively easy.

Unfortunately, cutting people costs can have some disastrous consequences. HR’s long-standing practice of “undercounting costs” is one of the prime reasons that HR fails to increase worker productivity. “Undercounting” is the process of omitting the additional costs caused by a bad practice or process because these “unintended consequences” are not directly connected to the initial action by HR. Some obvious examples of dubious cost cutting and the “undercounting” might include:

1. Hiring workers with fewer skills in critical positions is certainly cheaper than hiring individuals with superior skills but it may negatively impact product quality and innovation
2. When top performing workers demand more money, they can be replaced with cheaper, albeit less effective workers that in the long run creates the need to hire significantly more workers just to maintain the same level of production
3. Ignoring market compensation rates and underpaying in salary and benefits that ultimately hinders the ability to hire and retain top people
4. The substitution of low cost training for average cost training that results in increases in error and safety rates

As you can see, there are some potential negative consequences of arbitrarily cutting costs without simultaneously looking at the impact of cost cutting on revenues and productivity. In fact, any accountant can blindly cut costs but it takes a true productivity expert to understand that cutting costs and “undercounting” can actually have a significant negative impact on the firm.

The strategic target for HR should be to increase revenues and productivity while simultaneously maintaining or reducing your relative labor costs. If you give any CEO a choice as to whether they would prefer increasing revenues or cutting costs, they invariably pick the option to increase revenues. This is because whenever you increase revenue in a competitive marketplace it's obvious that you are improving your products and services, which are long-term competitive advantages. Short-term cost cutting might actually improve short-term profits but in the long-term, profits may go down and careless cost cutting may permanently harm our competitive position and image among customers.

CONCLUSION
Strategic HR presents a new challenge that few HR departments universally accept today, the challenge of managing workforce productivity. For some the reluctance to accept accountability for managing productivity is an issue of control, while for others it is the lack of a clearly defined customer the muddles their existing efforts. Regardless, becoming strategic requires that all HR efforts become coordinated and united under a uniform set of goals and objectives.

Leadership - What is it?

A great deal of work has been done by many authors and researchers in trying to identify and define "leadership". The vast body of research has focused on leadership traits, habits, competencies, behaviors, styles, values, skills and characteristics. Dave Ulrich (Ulrich, D et al, Results Based Leadership, Harvard Business Press, Boston, 1999) categorized much of the research into:

· Who leaders are - values, motives, personal traits
· What leaders know - knowledge, skills and abilities
· What leaders do - behaviors, habits, styles and competencies?

However, when one looks at the vast body of research into leadership, it is mostly concerned with the inputs of leadership and leaders, not the outputs - i.e. What leaders achieve.
A further point that has led to a great deal of confusion around the issue of "leadership" is the definition of leadership itself. Many authors use "leadership" and "management" interchangeably and a great deal of the research into leadership has been with people who are in formal organizational positions (e.g. supervisors, managers, senior executives) - the inference being that leadership is an integral part of the formal management role (Parry, K.W., Leadership Research: Themes, Implications, and a new Leadership Challenge, Leadership Research and Practice, Warriewood 1996).

Let me give my perspective as I understand the differences between the two often interchanged or linked terms

LEADERSHIP Vs MANAGEMENT
Leading:
Leadership occurs at all levels of the organisation. The essence of leadership is concerned with creating the conditions that encourage others to follow. Specifically:
· A shared understanding of the environment
· A shared vision of where we are going
· A shared set of organizational values
· A shared feeling of power

Managing:
While the leadership function is "big picture" the management function has a narrower focus. Leavitt described leadership, as "path finding" while management was path minding". Management is situational and involves:
· Getting things done (task focus)
· Through people (relationship focus)
Best practice in Leadership involves many things, all finely tuned to both the organisation and the environment in which the organisation operates.

Leadership is contextual and is concerned with outputs
The Leadership focuses purely on the four outputs achieved in any particular organizational context by the leader as discussed earlier

Values Provide Strong Foundations for Training

The values an organisation holds and shares with its people can be instilled and reinforced through its management educations and development efforts.

I once worked for an organisation that seemed to embody the epitome of the ideal. If fact, everything the management gurus suggest should be evident in the "excellent" organisation, was there. Employees who were dedicated, management who cared about the staff (and who knew the business!), and customers who were loyal. The organisation even had a marketing department that involved the staff in the latest advertising and promotional schemes before going public!.

Although I thoroughly enjoyed working there (and like all the others, would have shed blood, too), I thought the halcyon environment was merely a fluke and it was my good fortune to strike it lucky. With hindsight, I can now see the logic of why this organisation worked so well: it was the solid foundations on which this idyllic structure was built.

Those foundations were the corporate values. However, they were not mentioned overtly. Nor were they written up on any brass plaques. But evident they were. How did this organisation succeed in having "everyone singing from the same hymn book"? The answer lies in the nature and extent of the training that all staff experienced. For example, everyone joining the company attended two weeks of induction training before commencing in his or her role. This even applied to senior managers, who might be responsible for managing some of their fellow trainees.

It has taken me some years and the study of hundreds of organizations to realize that cementing organisation values into the training fabric of an organisation can have a dramatic impact on collective performance.

The Americans have coined a phrase that has become quite faddish in India - "walking the talk". It is intended to mean that management (and particularly top management) must model the behavior they expect of others. But how often does it happen and, more importantly, does it work? "

The only thing that really changes behavior is when the proclaimed values are practiced at every level including at the top". The inference can be drawn that not only must managers "do what they say", but there also must be a collective understanding of "what precisely it is that we should all do".

Management education and development can be the vehicle that drives the collective understanding and turns the corporate values into practical, day-to-day behavior. My experience suggests that few Indian organizations take the time and effort to base their management training on such solid foundations as corporate values.

A senior manager of a very successful Korean organisation put it "Corporate values work in mysterious ways - they can spur performance and satisfaction while instilling a sense of pride in belonging to a unique organisation". All organizations have values, whether they are publicly evident or not.

Before deciding to base the organization’s training on the values, it is important to have some understanding of what these values are. Lebow suggests there are two types of values: business values and people values. Business values are directed at the outside world, for example, "high product quality" and "superior customer service".

People values are directed to the inside world, for example, "trusting people" and "giving credit where it is due". When the business values and the people values are in harmony, the organisation is healthy. When the two are not in sync, training and education (while being well meaning) will not be effective in the long term.

It is the leaders of the organisation who must convert the corporate values into day-to-day behavior at all levels. In their studies of Indian leaders, Evans and Afors (Leaders in India, 1996) found that leaders who are committed and stick to their principles are those who have a personal alignment between their own welfare, the common good, and the organization’s values.

To help leaders develop the necessary leadership skills, training should be planned in four phases.

1. Identify each leader's personal values. This requires individuals to consider when (in their career to date) they have been most satisfied, motivated, and valued at work. What values did this role satisfy? This enables the leader to enunciate, perhaps for the first time, the values they inherently hold and often use as their basis for decision making.
2. Using their personal values as a base, leaders develop a scenario of their ideal organisation. Phase two requires managers, first as individuals and then in teams, to describe the ideal organisation. What does it look like? How does it function? What does it value?
3. Assess the leader's organisation against their ideal. In phase three, managers compare their own organisation to their ideal. What is inhibiting my organisation from being more like my ideal? What enables my organisation to be similar to my ideal? Compiling a list of inhibitors and enablers helps managers see how personal values can relate to their organization’s values.
4. Develop strategies for moving both personally and organizationally towards the ideal. The final phase involves developing strategies for translating the shared values into day-to-day actions.

One of the most effective ways of doing this is to repeat the four-phase leadership training
approach with managers and staff throughout the organisation. Each manager leads his/her team to assess the core values and how they can translate them into their field of operation.

Leadership is about Influencing

Leadership is about Influence, not authority. All the more relevant now, when leaders need to be Inspiring role-models. on how Leaders can acquire charisma to Inspire
To make people feel good, feel happy and feel hopeful is an important Leadership responsibility. This power to make people feel positively charged needs to be developed for effective leadership. Please share your thoughts on how this "Positive-energy-movement" can be created by Leaders.
A Leader who wishes to lead the people needs to have the following,
· Charismatic Power
· Referral Power
· Assertiveness in Communication
· Should use Listening as a power
Influencing for leader has 3 different types, a. Retribution b. Reciprocity and c. Reasoning, the most popular method is to use Reasoning as a source of influencing.
power is the capacity to produce affects on others, influence is the measurable change in attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors that result from the agent’s application of influence tactics. The nine common influence tactics are separated into two categories: soft tactics and hard tactics
Soft tactics are those considered friendly or non-coercive and are perceived to be fair. They include:
• Rational Persuasion. Trying to convince others with reason, logical arguments, or factual evidence.
• Inspirational Appeal. A request or proposal that attempts to build enthusiasm by appealing to others’ emotions, ideals, or values.
• Consultation. Inviting others to participate in planning, making decisions, and changes to obtain buy-in with the leader’s initiatives.
• Ingratiation. The practice of getting others in a good mood before attempting to influence them, often taking the form of flattery.
• Personal Appeal. Referring to friendship and loyalty when making a request.
Hard tactics involve more overt pressure, generate resistance, and are perceived as being unfair. They include:
• Exchange. Making express or implied promises and trading favors to gain compliance from the target.
• Coalition tactics. The agent enlists the aid of others as a way to influence the target to do something.
• Legitimating tactics. Basing a request on one’s authority or right, organizational rules or polices, or express or implied support from superiors
• Pressure. Using demands, threats, frequent checking, or persistent reminders to influence the target to do something.
The success of an influence tactic can be distinguished by the target’s commitment, compliance, or resistance to the desired result. Leaders with a relatively large amount of power may successfully employ a wider variety of influence tactics than those with little power. For example, leaders who use referent power have the widest range of influence tactics from which to choose (e.g. consultation, ingratiation, exchanges, inspirational appeals, personal appeals, and coalition tactics) while those who have legitimate power are limited to using only coalition, legitimizing, or pressure tactics.
The challenge is in properly assessing the situational environment, the intended outcome, and the appropriate influence tactics to employ based on the leader’s source and magnitude of power.
Integrating leadership with power and influence
Deck plate leadership is critical to the success of any organization. A firm understanding of the interconnectedness between power, influence tactics, and leadership is instrumental in building and maintaining an effective unit. The best mix of power and influence tactics for optimal leadership is dependent on the leader, the target, the situation, and the intended outcome. Leaders at the deck plate level should make it a priority to appropriately use all sources of power and influence.

Mistaking functional ability as a sign of leadership potential

‘In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence’ says the Peter Principle. Perhaps that’s why recent research has suggested:

Leadership is a skill in short supply and a lack of leadership often leads to *
a. Poor succession planning and performance (wiping £2bn a year from the FTSE 350)
b. 41% of workers have no confidence in their senior managers
c. 85% of large companies run leadership development programmes and cite a lack of good leadership in the UK, with the primary lack being people management ability .
(courtesy: personnel today website)

I think we are getting leadership just about as wrong as we can;
“Often potential corporate leaders are identified because they excel in a technical area and are then taught leadership skills. Functional excellence seems to magically imply leadership effectiveness.

The RAF (part of Royal Air force) provides a contrast. If you join you probably want to fly a plane. But you have to wait six months to get to that point: for the first six months you are immersed in issues of brand, leadership and follower-ship. This is even truer in the Red Arrows. We assume the 35-40 applicants a year can fly. The week-long selection process focuses on informal judgment of applicants’ behavioural skills. Although the skill bar is high, the team prefers someone who’s only just there but with excellent behavioural ability rather than vice versa *. (Courtesy: personnel today website)

In my view organisational leadership development is the wrong way round: behavioural skills should come first. Waiting to develop all of these skills at a senior level is a harder “nut to crack”. Development must be more evenly invested.

Employers should be putting more emphasis on embedding leadership values and behaviour at junior and middle management levels. It is a fundamental step in identifying potential and making sustainable improvements to organisational performance and leadership effectiveness.”

Leaders' TO DO list

Here are some to do for leaders' as I see it from communication and influence point of view, comments are welcome

a. Avoid using jargons when communicating with people, use of simple words and choice of words can make the difference. Simplicity becomes of paramount importance.
b. Create and articulate the vision to everyone around you. Bringing ones own Charisma into picture.
c. A good leader is someone who continuously seeks feedback for what he is doing from people who matter for his decision and action. He who has penchant for listening will become more aware of the situation around him.
d. Preparedness to face any adverse situations or hostility to ones action and anticipating the situation makes the leader effective.
e. A leader who responds to his followers or being there to his followers are respected and followed easily.
f. One of the biggest strength for leader, is having Passion, that unending energy, zeal that gives him ability to perform what he wishes to do.
g. A good leader is some one who can reinvent himself and his mission or goal posts with the changing scenarios.
h. Praise lavishly but genuinely
i. A little controversy if I may add, a leader should look like a leader in his appearance, since the THOERY of PRIMACY says, 90% of the time we make impression of an individual within the first 5-10 seconds , 70% of the time it comes true. Hence appearing as a leader is also important.

What is leadership?

Some of the good qualities of the leaders
a. Vision to what they believe
b. Articulation of their vision
c. Driving people to achieve the vision along with them
d. Enabling the vision to achievement
e. People Management
f. Belief in what he wants to do
g. Goal Clarity and Communication
h. Feedback seeking
i. Business Understanding
j. Market realization
k. Emotional Intelligence
l. Team Building
m. Picking right people
n. Creating right environment

In the current scenario of knowledge workforce where one understands all the above mentioned in detail, what then makes a leader distinct from them,
· May be the ability to apply them in practice.
· Consistently apply these principles in practice
· Not loosing the focus
· Courage to take charge of things
· Honesty in approach

With LMX model, Situational Leadership model, Servant Leadership model, Value based Leadership model, I still wonder there is some thing beyond all this and there is some thing inert to the meaning of the word “Leadership”.

At times I get to wonder whether the word “Leadership is not inborn but can be taught”, since I am starting to believe we will be teaching people How to react to certain situations, or anticipate situations, but it falls short of being called as leadership and tends to get moved to the realms of Management.

May be if I may add so, there is something of a “Charisma”, “Working with people” ability that makes some people leaders’ than managers. I want to quote some filmy names and some best known Indian sports people like “Munna Bhai from the movie Munna Bhai MBBS”, “Bhuvan from Lagaan”, “Andre Patch Adams from Patch Adams”. People like Sourav Ganguly, Anil Kumble, Dhanraj Pillay, Ramakant Achrekar, John Wright. If we dwell into these individuals what I find is that, they were not just some great names but had it in them always to take them where they wanted to go and they did it with hours and hours and some more hours of practice and then believing what they could do. Once the people around them got convinced, towing their line was not difficult.

Also I think there is certain degree of TIPPING POINT that triggered their innate quality to come out in public like Saurav’s reading of people and brining them to submission. Killing of Deer in front of Bhuvan to rebel to pay tax or Anil’s handling of Sydney test fiasco.These trigger moments shape the character of the leader and his belief systems. In other words trigger moments awaken the dormant but present talent.

I think I am as confused as my readers here and will be working on bringing certain sanity to this vague argument in some time. Any comments and suggestions are always appreciated.
So is it a combination of having the talent and harnessing it (management) for better

Thanks for the memories dada...

When I was young, my mother used to tell me and my younger sister a thing in Kannada (our native language) which loosely translates into some thing like this “one should be like a fruit hidden behind the leaves, no one should know you existed”, I am sure this is just not me, many of us who are in our late 20s and early 30s are imbibed in ourselves; to be modest and good. Unending supply of middle class values, as we grew older and older, saw the world with our dreamy eyes and all conquering confidence, we lacked what westerners called “Killer Instinct”, since we were reminded of our mothers’ word, we always fell that one last push short. Circa 1996 came a man who removed his shirt at the sacredest of place “LORDS” and announced that we are here to stay not only in Cricket but in all walks of life. He was Loved and hated; respected and scorned. A fighting strategist at times yet a simple tactician on many occasions. An open book to some yet a curious enigma to others, Sourav Ganguly will be remembered as the winningest Test Captain in Indian cricket as well as its great antihero. Thanks for the memories.

If one looks back at his career, one cannot help but say he was lucky to get into the Indian side (well Imran khan had a similar back door entry too) but boy how he took advantage of this... And how!!

One of the problems with Ganguly is that many of his gestures have been misunderstood because of cultural differences. At the core, he is fundamentally a gifted but lazy guy. And he is confident that his gifted ability will more than make up for his lack of discipline. The lethargy also means that he doesn’t bother to clear up the misunderstandings and lets it fester, even though he is extremely intelligent and articulate to do it. Of all the Fab Five, he is the best guy to play a part in any future administrative setup as he has the sharp political acumen required to survive and win, while having the credibility and intelligence to make a real difference.

There can be little doubt that the story of Sourav Ganguly is the story of blood, sweat and tears. However, all along his wonderful journey he has proved to be a man as hard as granite. He was a captain who always backed his trusted players to the hilt. As a captain, he revived the fortunes of Indian cricket, steering it clear of the mess that was created during the match-fixing controversy and instilling a new fighting spirit in the group. He was a born fighter and a great one at that. And he relished thriving on challenges. Indian captains were supposed to be polite, stoic, decent, not overly, demonstrably ambitious, middle class in sensibility if not lineage. Ganguly changed all that

As the career progressed, he found most of shots in the book: a delicate breeze through the covers, a soaring six over long on, delicate flicks, glances and a couple of late cuts too. In the end it was a virtuoso display, nearly reminiscent of the David Gower era.

Raise a toast Gavaskar’s, Ravi Sastri, Vengsarkar and Mr. More... Dada is much beyond what you thought of him... Don’t ever judge him with just another ordinary player or a human being... He was the king of offside... His long sixes delighted many many fans and inspiring cricketers. He is a true hero and has inspired many a managers in the corporate world... His determination and metal strength is out of a Robin Sharma book... Someone so strong that you cannot help but admire.

Dada... I am sure you have lots of cricket left in you... Surely we will miss you as a player... But knowing you... We know you have lots to contribute to Indian cricket....Hats of to you. Be proud of the fine innings you played ... You are a real roll model...keep walking... The sunset is still far away

And so he went with sagged and torn but very proud Indian cap in his hand ...

And so Anil Kumble, as per character, quietly turned in his badge and walked away from the Indian cricket stage, turning off yet another of the brightest lights of India’s greatest cricketing generation. As the history books will one day say, the Dhoni era was to begin or is it was not to be. Always something is left on the table. Cricket is like that, not exactly cruel but not sentimental either.

But now that he is gone and we can no longer take him as a “given”, maybe we will understand how important his grating accuracy and his relentlessness was to India’s performances. In the Delhi Test, when Anil was way below par, I think we already got a glimpse of the future—-that a Laxman double century or a sublime innings from Sachin count for little unless there is good old Jumbo to hammer in the nails on the coffin cover.

He will always be remembered for more than all those wickets, runs and matches won, he is a true gentleman and a warrior who is worth having as a role model for any youngster who aspire to play any game in India. Such was a stature of the man, not even the “GREAT BETTING GATE” which absolved some of the biggest names in Indian Cricket could touch him or even make a passing remark to him (people like Kapil had to cry on TV, Gavaskar’s locker room was opened, Azhar went out, Jadeja went out, some whispers were heard about some of the other great names). This single piece of evidence can get him role of “AMBASSODOR” for INDIA in any country he wishes to serve (not to forget the Sydney Fiasco earlier this year).

After playing this game competitively I know for sure, this is not a game for romantics, there are no happy endings in here, and it’s the biggest levelers one can hope for. For the good part of late 20th century and early part of 21st century, we have grown up with these 5 stalwarts of Indian cricket (perhaps add Vishwanathan Anand, Dhanraj Pillay, Baichung Bhutia and Leander Paes to the list). Have found joy in their success; have cried with them when they said “sorry”. Trains have stopped, schools and colleges have declared holiday, company board rooms have frozen when they were plying their trade for the badge they adored and we loved every bit of it. As one star after the other is turning off the lights on their illustrious career, I wonder will I be the same dedicated Cricket Fan ever after.

I can’t think of an Indian Team without Sachin and Anil for rest of my life. I think the future team sheets will be mere words put together for the sake of it. They will not carry any weight or scare to oppositions in the near future. We can forgive Dhoni to make mistake by putting Anil’s name in the team sheet next time when he pencils his 11, for all the captains for last 19 years its been a practice to put this quintessential team man’s name before any other names.
Nobody thought it would be so soon, so sudden; his exit, if nothing, signals the end of samurais from the world of cricket. Just like the fabled Japanese warriors, Anil too believed in total loyalty, putting his life on line each time he turned out for his country. He fought with the last ball too, for the last wicket, often surpassing himself when the odds were against him or the team.

It is said that people recognize the worth of their teeth after they are gone.

And so he went, leaving a Jumbo sized vacuum in our cricket and a sudden, surprising lump in our throats.

Remember the TITAN

The curtain is ready to fall on one of the most colourful chapters in the history of Indian - nay - world cricket. Saurav Ganguly was an often mis-understood man and so it was ironically befitting that his departure from the international cricket scene was also tinged with some controversy.
Did he retire on his own terms? Was he forced by the BCCI? And disgusting as it may sound, did a threat to kidnap his daughter have anything to do with his announcement? Nobody knows... and it's possible nobody will ever know. But what we can say for sure it that Indian cricket will never quite be the same without the mysterious, aristocratic Ganguly.
Nobody, and just nobody in the history of Indian cricket has evoked the kind of bipolar emotions that he has consistently done throughout his career. For every glorious extra-cover drive he played to every short ball he awkwardly fended; for every time he danced assuredly down the track to the spinners to every time he misfielded, for every silken boundary he hit to every single or two he refused - people either loved him or loathed him. But there was something more.
Saurav Ganguly fed the Indian teams he led with a potion, an elixir which captains before him had not dared to touch. It was called aggression. And happily for us, team India has since then not stopped consuming it. Who can forget his adrenaline-fuelled shirt twirling on the Lords balcony, when he mocked not just the English cricketers but Lord's tradition itself? Or India's amazing run to the World Cup final in 2003? Or his captain's innings of coruscating brilliance at the Gabba?
No chronicle of his legacy would be complete without a reference to his captaincy and his ability to get the best out of his players, particularly the younger ones. Whether it was the inspired decision to convert Sehwag to an opener, or the rather painful decision to make Dravid keep wicket, or the decision to bring Harbhajan back from relative obscurity for the 2001 Australia series, or the decision to promote Laxman to no.3 in THAT match at the Eden - most of his decisions were taken by putting his players directly in the cauldron - and almost all of them came off.
Saurav Ganguly will be remembered as, statistically and otherwise, India's greatest ever left-handed batsman, an exceptionally good Test match player who never allowed his average to dip below 40 and one of the all-time greats of the one-day game. But most of all, he will be remembered for his brand of captaincy that quite simply changed the face of Indian cricket. The curtain is ready to fall ... but there is one act of the play still left to witness. As Shah Rukh Khan would have said, "Abhi thoda picture baaki hai mere dost". Farewell Saurav. And thank you for the entertainment.

Mapping Internal Business as Accounts from L&D perspective

Was wondering how it would be to map a Business as an account (internally) and what are the various parameters one should keep in mind while doing that. May be you can add some more value to this.
I wanted to come out with a model which should help all the Learning Solutions Providers at large... :)
I think the following parameters make sense to have it as a part of L&D Account mapping...
Your inputs to these things are much appreciated.
a. Understand the Client-

• Create Client Profile - Client Facts, Business Imperatives, Performance, Environment, and SWOT Analysis
• Create Value Analysis (SVA) Model - Enables the team to understand client performance, identify value creation opportunities and related value drivers, and determine how L&D Team can deliver tangible business value
• ASK THE CLIENT! Elicit and validate information on their needs and imperatives, key executives, culture
  Gain insight from third parties and external sources (alliance partners, research industry analyst information, media, etc.)
• Related industry High Performance Business research.

b. Create the Account Plan-

• Position/Perception: How do we want to be perceived by the client in terms of our capabilities and services? What can we do to improve our position relative to the competition?
• Relationships: How can we strengthen current relationships? Where do we need to penetrate the organization further? What are the relationships we need to build for future work, and how do we do that?
• Competitors: Who are the biggest threats at this client and what are their strengths and weaknesses? Who are their supporters and advocates, how do we neutralize them? What is our plan to beat or unseat them?
• Opportunities: How do we want to drive value for this company? What are the opportunities that we want to focus on now – and build for the future?

c. Live the Plan-

• Drive the momentum: meet regularly and often
• Carry out action plans: hold team members accountable for what they “signed up for” in the account plan
• Review team accomplishments and sales metrics
• Focus on improving relationships and converting ideas into opportunities
• Revisit and refine strategies
• Keep the leadership engaged
• Conduct regular Client Value Reviews (value we have delivered through our work with the client) with the client
• Post the Account Plan on the available in the repository
• Schedule regular Account Plan Reviews with leadership.

How to measure the training efficiency

This is just a thought that I was having on informal and formal learning,.
You might decide that having the learners "informally" learn a task is more efficient than "formal" training, but according to Carnevale, Gainer, & Villet's , "Training in America: The Organization and Strategic Role of Training," formal learning is about three times more efficient than informal learning. Now they don't break down the numbers, but consider this -- Allen Tough, a Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto, who was one of the thought leaders on informal learning, discovered that within each informal learning episode (where the primary motivation is to gain and retain certain knowledge and skills on a task), the average learner interacts with an average of 10 people.Thus rather than informal learning being a solitary act, these learners are interrupting the daily activities of their coworkers as they seek advice and coaching. So now you might think it is more efficient to actually create the training program, rather than have them learn it informally.But consider this -- a large piece of research on informal learning was produced by the Education Development Center (EDC) in 1997. This was a comprehensive two-year study funded by the US Department of Labor and the Charitable Trusts. It included companies such as Boeing, Siemens, Data Instruments, Ford and Motorola. When observing operations at the Motorola Company the researchers calculated that each hour of formal learning spills over to four-hours of informal learning or a 1:4 ratio. It seems informal and formal learning is implicitly tied together.So now depending on how many "episodes" of informal learning are in your formal training program, you have now potentially exaggerated the savings you were hoping to achieve as the spill-over to informal learning could erase it all with its inefficacy and disruptions to the rest of the workforce!Yep -- calculating "efficiency" is a piece of a cake!

What Role Does Training Play in Overcoming Employee Discontent With Supervisors?

Q We have come to the conclusion that our supervisors do not have the required skills to properly manage their people. We think our current supervisors' tool kit (it is in the form of a folder of useful information, links to self-help modules, etc.) is not giving them the information they need (or at least maybe not in a format or layout that delivers the message). Our survey shows that 65 percent of our employees are unhappy with how they are supervised. How could we enhance the tool kit to make managers more engaging and effective? What might they need to perform their roles well?

--Out of Touch, HR business partner, oil/mining/gas, Lagos, Nigeria

A Your first step here is to back up a bit. Numerous pieces of research show how getting promoted to supervisory roles is a highly stressful move for people. Also, many of today's supervisors feel unprepared for (and unsupported in) their new roles. This can contribute directly to the discontent you're seeing.

Instead of focusing solely on the tool kit, start preparing supervisors up to six months before they take on the added responsibilities of the promotion. More often than not, employees are promoted because of technical ability rather than management skill. Supervisory candidates need to be developed, coached and possibly mentored so that they are fully equipped to start achieving results through others.

It's also important to pay attention to what's going on at the senior manager level. If senior managers aren't communicating corporate strategies, goals and expectations, then that disconnect will affect the way supervisors manage their employees. "Transition talks"--one-on-one meetings between supervisors and managers--can resolve this issue. Topics could include strategies, goals, priorities, how to work within the system and who the resource people will be.
As for a tool kit specifically, a variety of information and activities should be available that support real skills development. Ideally this will follow initial leadership training. These skills are necessary for success in any leadership role, such as planning and organization, time management, communication (including listening skills), delegation, building effective teams and motivating others.

For example, let's assume a deficiency in giving feedback is identified. While having the supervisor read a few articles may help, it alone won't achieve lasting behavior change. People need key behavior steps that help them apply skills to real-world situations. With this in mind, the tool kit could include a comprehensive online tool with a number of interactive sessions. The supervisor could select information about feedback, then listen to a scenario and respond to questions about it. This type of integrated approach provides the kind of support needed to apply the skills back on the job.

Once the right development and reinforcement structures are in place--from initial guidance and support to a supplementary tool kit--your supervisors will be better positioned to provide the kind of leadership that engages employees and contributes to higher productivity.

Forget Dave Ulrich: HR Doesn't Drive Organizational Change

Let's face it: By their very nature, the fundamental HR processes are aimed at safeguarding stability. But when you ask HR managers about the core competencies of their departments, they will tell you that the management of organizational change is at the forefront. They are wrong.

Forget what Dave Ulrich Says!

In his 1997 book, Human Resource Champions: the Next Agenda for Adding Value & Delivering Results, Ulrich challenges human resource professionals to define the value they create for the business. By doing so, he distills these roles for HR careers: strategic partner, administrative expert, and employee champion and change agent.

When it comes to that last one, we have to forget what Dave Ulrich says.
Whenever the human side is involved, organizational change projects tend either to ignore it or to completely outsource it to the HR department. Hopes, dreams wishes, and expectations are never taken into account, and training, communication and coaching are restricted to the minimum. The attitude in most projects is exemplified by this statement: "We'll take care of the process re-engineering and the technical stuff; HR will do the soft stuff."

However, there are two fundamental reasons why you should not count on HR to drive a change:

1. HR is not a change agent
HR safeguards continuity in the organization. Let's face it: By their very nature, the fundamental HR processes are aimed at safeguarding stability. But when you ask HR managers about the core competencies of their departments, they will tell you that the management of organizational change is at the forefront. They are wrong. The basic processes of HR and their accompanying goals are the following:
· Recruiting and selection's goal: employment continuity.
· Training and development's goal: knowledge and skills continuity.
· Performance management and appraisal's goal: performance continuity.
· Compensation and benefits' goal: stability in personnel costs.
· Work organization and communication systems' goal: social stability.
Therefore, HR should be approached as you would any other function in the organization, and HR should be the first target of your change-management efforts. But there is more.

2. HR is an agent of continuity
As a support function, HR will be affected indirectly by a re-engineering effort and will most likely resist at firsthand. Does that disqualify HR from having any stake in the organizational change? Not at all.

Change always happens in three phases: unfreezing, changing and refreezing. As the key strength of HR is to stabilize the human side of an organization during and after a transition, it is its role to lead the refreezing stage. In order for the change to stick onto the organization, you are going to use the HR department's tools and methods.

Therefore, HR is one of the first targets to work with. The faster you can enlist HR into becoming a continuity agent, the better. Just don't expect them to be on the same page from Day One, as they—like everybody else—will resist the change in the beginning.

HR as a co-pilot in long-term planning

From my experience, the only HR actions that have a positive impact take place at the beginning and at the end of a change program life cycle. This leads me to conclude that continuity, not change, is HR's core business. Even when the organization is affected during the transition, HR should help you out in minimizing the disruption of continuity.

As an example, program staffing of key people is a task that needs to be conducted in close alignment with HR as it should involve career perspectives and long-term accountability. Gradually, as the program comes to a close, HR needs to become the owner of the deliverables regarding learning, performance, organization, and communication.

The role of HR in this case is one of sustaining the change and integrating it into its standards and procedures. In other words: safeguarding stability and continuity of the new organization.

How Communication can help in Mediation

For many people involved in disputes, mediation offers an ideal opportunity for engaging in constructive dialogue about their differences. The mediator attempts to establish a safe environment in which the parties can listen to and understand one another. Attention is focused on clarifying the interests of both parties in an effort to assist them in reaching mutually agreeable solutions to their disputes. Even under these "ideal" conditions, disputants sometimes engage in behaviors which seem to increase the resistance of the other party to resolving the dispute.

This paper will identify a number of "resistance-evoking" behaviors, as well as behaviors which seem to lead to cooperation and understanding between disputants. In addition, the possible relevance of these observations to constructive confrontation of seemingly intractable societal conflicts will be explored.

I have repeatedly observed that, regardless of the content of the dispute, how one disputant communicates with the other usually has a significant impact on the outcome of mediation. Disputes that start with one issue often evolve into two different issues when either of the disputants exhibits certain behaviors in mediation. While numerous disputant behaviors may result in increased resistance by the other party (e.g., focusing on what appear to the other party to be minute, seemingly irrelevant details or insisting on the use of a tape recorder during the mediation), for many participants in mediation, the perception that "disrespect" has been communicated by the other party presents a significant barrier to their desire to cooperate and reach agreements. While eliminating or avoiding behaviors which communicate disrespect to the other party is no guarantee of reaching an agreement in mediation, when one party's goal is to encourage the other party to reach agreements with him/her, "communicating disrespect" does not seem to be a "strategy" that usually works! It is one that, most often, "backfires!"

I hasten to add that because of cultural or other differences between disputants, perceptions sometimes differ about what is--and is not--"disrespectful" communication. Admittedly, individuals may also differ as to the significance attached to "disrespectful communication" within the context of a dispute. For example, in some cultures (or families), boisterous, verbally aggressive behavior during disputes is more accepted than in others. However, for most people I have observed, when they feel disrespected by the other party, I have seldom, if ever, seen an increase in their desire to cooperate and try to settle the dispute! Also, there are some behaviors that seem to be consistently perceived as "disrespectful," regardless of cultural or family background, etc.

For some participants in mediation, avoiding engaging in the behaviors which increase resistance from the other party is extremely difficult. And for some, engaging in behaviors which encourage cooperation from the other party can be equally--if not more--difficult. A disputant may feel angry, fearful, insulted, mistrustful, defensive, or misunderstood by the other party. Additionally, a disputant may have little or no genuine respect for the other party. Given these kinds of feelings and attitudes, what often seems to be a "normal" or "natural" human response is an urge to behave in exactly the opposite manner from that which seems most likely to encourage the other party to listen and to cooperate. Unfortunately, even when disputants recognize in advance that engaging in these behaviors may be counter-productive, they cannot always refrain from engaging in them. The "temptation" is sometimes too great.
Common disputant behaviors which seem to increase resistance during mediation are presented below. Many, if not all of these, are often perceived by the "receiving" party as a sign of "disrespect." Examples are provided wherever possible to illustrate the behaviors.

1. Negative labeling, insulting, or calling the other party offensive names. (Example: "You are a liar.")
2. Minimizing or ignoring the other's feelings. (Example: "Frankly, I don't care if you are upset!")
3. Lying about, denying, or misrepresenting information known to the other party.
4. Blaming the other for the problem with "you" statements. (Example: "You make me mad when you forget to lock the door when you leave the office!")
5. Communicating condescension. (Example: "You mean to tell me that you are just now figuring that out?")
6. Questioning the other party's honesty, integrity, intelligence, or competence. (Example: "How do you expect me to trust you this time?")
7. Making offensive or hostile non-verbal expressions or gestures. (Examples: rolling the eyes, loud sighs, laughing, "giving the finger," sticking one's tongue out at the other, or groaning when the other party speaks.)
8. Making interpretations of what the other party says based on stereotypes or prejudicial beliefs. (Example: "All you people ever think about is how you can avoid working!")
9. Insisting that the other party "admit to being wrong." (Example: "This is not about my perceptions of what happened. I saw you take my floppy disk and you damn well better admit it!")
10. Using sarcasm in addressing the other party. (Example: "Well, how nice of you to grace us with your presence. I'm shocked!")
11. Making moral judgments about the other party. (Example: "The Lord will punish you for these sins!")
12. Making threats to the other party. (Example: "You'd better stick to your word or I'm going to talk with the boss about your behavior!")
13. Making demands of the other party. (Example: "I demand that you write me a letter of apology.")
14. Refusing to shake hands with the other party when he/she offers. (Example: At the beginning of the mediation session.)
15. Interrupting the other party when he/she is speaking.
16. Shouting at the other party.

Misunderstandings can prevent disputants from identifying ways to resolve their disputes. Effective listening minimizes this problem. The behaviors which follow are examples of the type that seem to encourage listening and facilitate understanding between disputants in mediation. Often, these behaviors seem to enhance the desire of the "other" to cooperate:

1. Using "I" statements, rather than "you" statements. (Example: "I am frustrated about how frequently the office door has been unlocked when I have arrived at work in the mornings.")
2. Conveying that the disputant has been listening attentively. (Example: "It sounds as if your biggest concerns are for your long-term job security and recognition for your accomplishments. Is that right?")
3. Making "appropriate" eye-contact. (Note: This one is extremely culturally dependent. The key issue is for Disputant A to make eye contact with Disputant B in a way that is comfortable for Disputant B.)
4. Expressing a desire to see both parties get as much of what they want as possible from mediation. (Example: "I'd like to see both of us walk out of here happy.")
5. Acknowledging responsibility for part of the problem whenever possible. (Example: "You know, I hadn't seen it before, but I think I did make some mistakes in the way I approached you.")
6. Acknowledging the other party's perceptions whenever possible. (Example: "I haven't considered this matter from that perspective before, but I think I can see how it looked that way to you.")
7. Identifying areas of agreement with the other party whenever possible--especially if he/she does not recognize that such areas of agreement exist. (Example: "You know, Conrad, I agree with you that we ought to make time management more of a priority for our office in the future.")
8. Allowing the other party to "let off steam." (Note: This requires extreme self-control, but if the other party has not expressed him/herself previously, this can be extremely valuable.)
9. Avoiding assumptions. (Example: "Could you help me understand why having these specific days off is so important to you?")
10. Indicating that the other party "has a good point" when he/she makes a point you believe has merit. (Example: "You're absolutely right about x.")

While many of these disputant behaviors appear to promote either cooperation or resistance between parties in mediation, these same effects can be observed in negotiations which do not involve a mediator. What, if anything do these observations suggest about how larger-scale, seemingly intractable conflicts might be constructively confronted? To answer this question, it is necessary to examine common behaviors exhibited by participants in social conflicts and to describe what it means to constructively confront a seemingly intractable conflict.

Social conflicts involve challenges to values, mores, customs, norms, laws, etc. Often in these conflicts participants seek to dramatize their beliefs and/or positions to make others aware of their concerns and motivate them to action. When opposing groups confront or refer to one another, they may engage in negative labeling (name-calling and insults), sarcasm, moral judging, threatening, and/or, in the most extreme cases, physical violence and/or property damage against those on the "other side." These behaviors do not illustrate constructive confrontation of conflict. It is possible that some of these behaviors are so unpleasant that the desire to avoid them could motivate one side to negotiate with the other. However, it is also likely that, at least for some period of time, when participants engage in these kinds of behaviors, the effect is that the conflict is merely perpetuated in its current form, or escalated and made more intractable. This suggests some possible reasons why participants might wish to confront their differences in more constructive ways:

1) To avoid the negative consequences and/or minimize the costs of continued involvement;
2) To promote understanding between and/or among stakeholders; and,
3) to have an opportunity to positively influence the beliefs and/or actions of the "other side."

Observations of disputant behavior in mediation, would suggest that when participants in seemingly intractable conflicts wish to constructively confront their differences, this is more likely to occur when they avoid the kinds of behaviors described above, and engage instead, in behaviors which promote listening, understanding, and cooperation. Constructive confrontation requires communication which honestly acknowledges differences and demonstrates respect for the dignity and rights of all participants.

Constructive confrontation can occur when participants interact with one another directly or indirectly. Direct interaction often occurs in a "public forum," such as a debate, demonstration, or "town meeting" where individuals are given the opportunity to express opinions, raise questions or concerns, etc. in the presence of those on the "other side." A more indirect opportunity to engage in constructive confrontation can be seen in advertising campaigns (which, by definition, are designed to influence the beliefs and/or actions of others).

These suggestions clearly have relevance only for participants who wish to constructively confront the issues which divide them. The suggestions outlined above will not, by themselves, settle or resolve these conflicts. However, based on observations of individuals who experience success in mediation, it is fairly evident which kinds of behaviors seem to prevent escalation of a conflict and promote a civil climate in which thoughtful, meaningful discussion can take place. These are potentially useful first steps toward constructively confronting seemingly intractable conflicts.

Communicating With Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication

Gudykunst and Kim believe that intercultural communication can be understood via the same basic variables and processes used to describe other forms of communication. All communication occurs between people who have varying degree of familiarity with each other. The key factor in understanding intercultural communication is the concept of the stranger.
Understanding Communication
Strangeness and familiarity make up a continuum. The authors use the term "stranger" to refer to those people at the most unfamiliar end of the continuum. Thus anyone could be considered a stranger, given a sufficiently foreign context. A stranger has limited knowledge of their new environment - of its norms and values. And in turn, the locals have little knowledge of the stranger - of her beliefs, interests and habits. Generally speaking, communication with another involves predicting or anticipating their responses. When communicating with someone familiar we are usually confident in our anticipation, and may not even notice that we are making such predictions. In contrast, when we communicate with strangers we are more aware of the range of their possible responses, and of the uncertainty of our predictions.
Communicative predictions are based on data from three levels. First is the cultural level. This level involves information about the other's culture, its dominant values and norms. This is often the only level of information available when communicating with a stranger. Even so, a better understanding of the stranger's culture yields better predictions. The second level of information is sociocultural. This includes data about the other's group membership, or the groups to which they seek to belong. This type of information is the predominate data used in intracultural communication. Finally there is psychocultural data. This is information about the individual's characteristics, and is the sort of data most relevant to communication with friends.
We understand such data by the process of social cognition. Social cognition is a dialectical process which involves both grouping particulars into categories based on their similarities, and of distinguishing individuals from their categories based on their differences. Communication with strangers often relies too heavily on categorization (stereotyping). Such stereotypes may be inaccurate, or may not apply to the present individual. To improve communication with strangers we must pay attention to their unique, individual features. The authors argue that effective communication with strangers requires an increased awareness of our communication behaviors. First, we tend to categorize things automatically, and so we are less aware of doing it. It takes more of our conscious awareness to differentiate particular individuals from their stereotypical categories. Second, much of our daily communication follows familiar scripts, and so we are not consciously aware of that communication behavior. We cannot rely on such familiar scripts and norms when communicating with a stranger. Our communication will be improved if we recognize that familiar scripts do not apply, and seek to modify our communication behaviors accordingly.
Uncertainty and Anxiety
Generally, in communication, we seek to reduce uncertainty. Communication with strangers involves relatively greater degrees of uncertainty, due to the difficulty in predicting a stranger's responses. We experience uncertainty with regard to the stranger's attitudes, feelings and beliefs. We are also uncertain of how to explain the stranger's behavior. Motivation to reduce this uncertainty is more acute when we expect to have further interactions with the stranger, or when they are a potential source of benefit.
We may reduce our uncertainty and increase the accuracy of our predictions by gaining more information about the stranger. The authors describe three basic strategies for gathering such information. One may passively observe the stranger. One may actively seek out information from other friends of the stranger, or from books. Finally, one may seek information directly from the stranger by interacting with them and asking questions. Also, offering information about one's self often prompts reciprocal offerings of information from another.
The increased uncertainty in interactions with strangers is accompanied by higher levels of anxiety, as we anticipate a wider array of possible negative outcomes. We may worry about damage to our self-esteem from feeling confused and out of control. We may fear the possibility of being incompetent, or being exploited. We may worry about being perceived negatively by the stranger. And we may worry that interacting with a stranger will bring disapproval from members of our own group. Generally these anxieties can be reduced by paying more conscious attention to the communication process, and by gathering more information on the stranger. The authors add a further caution. Generally, individuals tend to explain their own behavior by reference to the situation. Observers tend to attribute an individual's behavior to elements of that individual's character. When interacting with strangers we are especially likely to attribute their behavior to their character, and then to view their character as typical of their culture (or race, etc.). That is, we are especially likely to interpret a stranger's behavior in light of our stereotypes about what "those kind of people" are like.

Self-Revealing Communication: A Vital Bridge Between Two Worlds

Use of I-Statements
I-statements can be contrasted to you-statements. Consider the difference between saying, "I feel as if I'm not being understood," and "You aren't really listening to me." The authors describe I-statements as statements that "disclose our experience without attacking others, invalidating their feelings, or criticizing them for not meeting our needs or conforming to our point of view."[p. 206]
You-statements tend to be perceived as intrusive, blaming, or attacking. They are manipulative or coercive, in that they seek to change the other person's behavior. Such statements often provoke a defensive reaction, which typically takes the form of either a hostile counter-attack, or withdrawal from the conversation. Hostile retorts tend to escalate the destructive communication cycle, and promote mistrust. Withdrawing tends to suppress needs and feelings, which can then erupt with greater force in later communication.
I-statements on the other hand can halt this defensive and hostile escalation process. Expressing one's own feelings and needs tends to evoke trust and sensitivity on the part of the other. Such self-expression is non- manipulative. This then creates the space for the parties to explore the "unacknowledged feelings, meanings and unmet needs that are at the source of the difficulties."[p. 207] Thus, self-expression, by providing an opportunity for better understanding, is also empowering. The authors acknowledge that "a basic assumption behind self-revealing expressiveness is that if people see who we really are, how we really feel, and what we really need, they will tend to respond to us in an accommodating manner."[p. 208]
The Power of Vulnerability
Such self-revelation does entail vulnerability. However the authors argue that vulnerability can be powerful, in at least two ways. First, they observe that "responding from a confident center within our vulnerable inner world reflects a special kind of inner strength."[p. 209] Conversely, being forceful and aggressive often masks deeper insecurities. Second, self-expression leads to more effective communication and understanding, which in turn fosters greater trust and intimacy. It can cause the other party to change their behavior by their own choice, whereas a more coercive approach would simply provoke defensiveness and distancing.
Finally, self-revealing communication has transformative potential. In the larger picture, the authors point out that "personal growth is largely a function of our capacity to be with these feelings [of fear, sadness, anger, hurt, shame, isolation and desire] in an accepting, sensitive manner."[p. 210] When we practice self-revealing expressiveness we are developing just such a capacity in ourselves, and are encouraging it in our partner also.