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.
From India, Kolhapur
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.
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
From Sri Lanka, Panadura
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
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....
From Saudi Arabia, Riyadh
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
From India, Mumbai
16However, 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
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.
From India, Madurai
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.
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... :-)
From United States, Daphne
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... :-)
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 ???).
From India, Mumbai
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 ???).
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
From India, Hyderabad
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
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 -
From India, Madurai
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 -
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......
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
From India, Mumbai
Long ago I read an interesting description of an INDIVIDUAL'S THOUGHT PROCESS about a situation or a point: There are FOUR POSSIBLE CASES......
- I KNOW (that) I KNOW
- I KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW
- I DON'T KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW &
- I DON'T KNOW (that) I KNOW
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
From India, Mumbai
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Chapter XI - The Mangers as Person.ppt
Pronunciation of Third Person Singular.doc
10 Tips For Building A Strong Relationship.pd f