Continue reading »]]>

I haven’t seen Satyamev Jayate. Don’t intend to. Not until the hype and emperor’s new clothes syndrome wears off.

The subject I hear he touched upon isn’t new… or have you been living on mars without cable and internet?!

Indians are great with talk and tamasha. Poor on action. Remember someone called Anna Hazare and all the related status/posts/comments/tweets online..??

While I admire Aamir as an actor, and I welcome every new initiative to improve the hell we live in, pardon me for being cynical about people’s knowledge or intent behind the hype.

That’s the unfortunate truth that prevails inside me. And perhaps inside more like me.

Would love to be proven wrong though… until then, have a nice day!

ps. seen the official website? now this is why i say people don’t think this through…

1. Do you think anyone will SMS No, to a fast track court to address the sting ops?
2. The Poll asking who’s responsible – Doctors – Inlaws – Lawmakers – whoa! is the answer that simple? how about the father, and often the mothers who are party to it themselves?
3. Serious issues? You need Playboy flip flops from Jabong at a flat 30% off!

In its defense, I would like to add this post I just read about the show. He makes some good points – 10 to be precise.

Continue reading »]]>

I’ve often debated the merits of being an assertive, lead-from-the-front, the-boss-is-always-right kind of leader, versus being a nurturing, i-am-right-behind-you, what-do-you-think kind of leader. And for me, the latter has always won the debate.

However, I hear plenty of arguments in favor of the former school of thought, and also see great merits in it. Today I read a feature article by Knowledge@Wharton, in CD from The Economic Times. Titled “Perfect Pairing” it talks about how effective leadership is determined less by leadership and more by the personalities of the people they’re managing!

“Effective leadership is determined less by leadership and more by the personalities of the people they’re managing”

This of course fits with my thinking, and challenges conventional wisdom that tells us that leaders are the men and women who stand up, speak out, give orders, make plans and are generally the most dominant, outgoing people in a group… the extraverts.

This feature points out that introverted leaders are more effective in circumstances where there is a strong second-line of command, and where you want to enhance employee proactiveness.

This belief is supported in a soon to be published paper titled “Reversing the Extraverted Leadership Advantage: The Role of Employee Proactivity”. The paper is co-authored by management professor at Wharton – Adam Gant, Francesca Gino of Harvard Business Schoool, and David Hofmann of Kenan-Flagler Business Schooo, and will appear in the Academy of Management Journal.

The paper points out while assertiveness or extraversion is a strong predictor (and even common evaluation) of  who becomes a leader, it is not necessarily the best way to be a leader.

Extraverted leaders are less receptive to others and their ideas, and can respond in a way that’s discouraging for employees and makes them less willing to work hard and share ideas. Grant further points out that Introverted leaders on the other hand, are more likely to listen carefully to suggestions and support employees actions that make them more proactive.

But point is not about which type is better, but the point here is that you have to choose whether to be extraverted or introverted depending on the kind of people you work with. Because a mismatch of personalities is what leads to leadership-employee conflict and attrition.

Some employees need vision and hand-holding, prodding even… while others simply need vision, a platform, and the space to think, act, and grow. You have to decide which type they are, and then act accordingly.

On a personal note, I have benefited greatly from introverted bosses who nurtured and pushed me to do my best. Of course, being brilliant also helps

No seriously, I have been fortunate to work with and under leaders who have been secure and confident about themselves and hence not challenged by my ideas or work style or anything! They’ve listened, questioned, waited, supported, and done whatever it took to make me apply myself. These are the same people, who on the other hand have given others no rope, except the kind they could hang themselves with!

I myself tend to be more introverted than extraverted. I recognise, like the paper points out, you don’t have to be loud and commanding all the time to lead all the time. Sometimes and with some people, you have to just hand over the wheel, and let them know where you want to be led. And I’ve been fortunate to have been with some really great drivers!

ps. now coming to the relevance of the image above, what I am talking about here. While the Porsche 911 Carrera GTS is a thing of beauty overall – the most powerful incredible thing about it is the engine – which incidentally, powers this beauty from the back

Continue reading »]]>

Cover of The Art of Choosing

Life is all about choices. And the ones we make, and the ones we don’t define who we are, and define our lives. Choice itself has many interpretations and applications – from basic choices we make in our daily lives, to choice as an expression of free will, and a million things in between.

Choice is good, and choice is bad, depending on who you are, and on what you apply your choices. And the impact of choice itself depends upon the degrees with which you apply it.

Then there are informed choices and there are misplaced ones. Choices based on articulated life goals and beliefs are a very powerful thing, but Choices driven by hollow ‘freedom to choose whatever one wants’, or worse, out of rebellion, is sure-pure destructive in the long run, as much as it may seem to be ‘the brilliant light of hope and success’ in in the eyes of the beholder.

I am currently reading a fascinating book called The Art of Choosing, by Sheena Iyengar, and would like to share some interesting, thought-provoking passages from it – starting with the first essential of Choice – a goal. Because this seems to be the biggest stumbling block in society today, when it comes to making choices. What are we making them for? What’s the end to which Choice is a means?

“So we return to this question: If we don’t even know our own minds, how do we figure out what will make us happy? We can temper the automatic system with the reflective system, and vice versa, but we still make mistakes. Perhaps, instead of looking for answers only within ourselves, we should examine what others have done in similar situations.”

The irony about making “My Choice”, is that it often forces people to make a choice different from what others have made. Because very often accepting “another’s choice” is seen as conforming, as in the opposite of making your own choice, hence the need to be/state/do it differently, in order to express your “own choice”, albeit without clarity of the reality.

Professor Daniel Gilbert, an expert on happiness research, writes in his book Stumbling Upon Happiness

“What’s so ironic about this predicament is that the information we need to make accurate predictions of our emotional futures is right under our noses, but we don’t seem to recognize its aroma”. We tend to think that the experiences of others are mostly irrelevant because our circumstances and our personalities have no equivalents. “[We] think of ourselves as unique entities – minds unlike any others, and thus we often reject the lessons that the emotional experience of others has to teach us.”

“We tend to have a knee-jerk negative response to anything that seems to want or have control over us. We worry that if we give up any control, we may eventually become nothing more than robots. Our anxiety is not always unwarranted, but too much of it is counterproductive. The problem may lie in the fact that we tend to put choice on a pedestal, so much so that we expect to be able to bend everything to our will. We would serve ourselves better by separating the influences that conflict with our values from the influences that are basically harmless. We can then consciously examine our reasoning process to combat some of the covert effects of the negative influences…

…by focusing on things that really matter, we avoid running ourselves ragged over decisions that are simply not important in the long run.”

Now the truth is, given emancipation of society (regardless of education and responsibility levels), and emergence of empowered individuality (irrespective of whether or not the individuality is well thought out or intentioned), the world and our lives have today become an incredible, dazzling, “supermarket of choices” where you can walk down any aisle of life, and be faced with rows and rows of choices. From the love section, to the friends and family department, to the work and professional aisle – the choices go beyond the wildest Starbucks customisation fantasy.

In the book, Iyengar points us to Alexis de Tocqueville, the French thinker who keenly chronicled American society, and described as follows, the consequences of ever-increasing choice, starting 170 years ago:

“In America I have seen the freest and best educated of men in circumstances the happiest to be found in the world; yet it seemed to me that a cloud habitually hung on their brow, and they seemed serious and almost sad even in their pleasures… They clutch onto everything, but hold nothing fast, and so lose their grip as they hurry after some new delight.”

At the end of the day, I am a huge fan of Choice. And the ability to choose ones friends, work, relationships and the nature of it all. The point is, Choice, like a loaded gun, is a potent weapon. Wield  it well, and it will protect you for life, fool around with it, and you could end up shooting yourself in the foot!

“Choosing helps us create our lives. We make choices, and are in turn made by them. Science can assist us in becoming more skillful choosers, but at its core, choice remains an art. To gain most from it, we must embrace uncertainty and contradiction. It does not look the same to all our eyes, nor can everyone agree on its purpose. Sometimes choice pulls us to itself, other times it repels us. We use it without exhausting it, and the more we uncover, the more we find still hidden. We cannot take full measure of it. Therein lies its power, its mystery, and its singular beauty”

Possibly Related Articles (automatically generated)

• Risk and Choice [Terry Daniel] (ecademy.com)
• Saturday Morning Reads: With Great Choice, Comes Great Marketing Responsibility (theharteofmarketing.com)

Continue reading »]]>

I read this piece by Sumeet Vaid, Founder CEO of Freedom Financial Planners, in the Economic Times today on how it is important to cut back on expenses today, in order to build a sound financial future tomorrow.

I have always personally derided this perspective, saying its not relevant to people who have a steady career path and the confidence that their income will only rise over the years. Which means, what may seem beyond your reach today, will be something well within, tomorrow.

But this is a different take, which has its merits and logic, given the unpredictable world of today, and the fact that the best laid plans can also fall flat. And this is true, not just for individuals, but for corporates and companies as well. Take what’s happened in the US, for example – its a classic case of collective instant gratification backfiring in epic proportions!

A couple of excerpts from the article, and then a link to the complete opinion online.

“Usually, when we spend on buying things, we end up borrowing. You may think, “How can I borrow when I am spending from my own pocket?” What you don’t realise at that moment is that every penny you spend on buying something that is more of a want than a need, you are borrowing money from yourself. You may think that you don’t have to pay yourself back, but this tendency pulls you away from your life dreams and goals since you do not have the money to save or invest… “

“…An important fact put forth was that individuals forgo long term goals for instant gratification. Most of us just get a certain “high” while buying a particular product for e.g. a new pair of shoes, or going to the best restaurant in town. This habit increases borrowings.

A way to break this pattern is by making a clear demarcation between what you want and need. They are always two separate things. Though instant gratification is fun for the moment, on a long-term basis, it might not be what you need. Commit yourself towards creating reserves for your future, instead of just thoughtlessly spending money…”

Read the whole opinion here.

Related Articles

• Delayed Gratification and the Secret to Will Power (wisebread.com)
• Budget Rehab: Prioritize Your Purchases (money.usnews.com)
• THE END OF INSTANT GRATIFICATION: It’s Time For America To Stop Eating And Spending And Get Into Shape (businessinsider.com)
• In tough times, financial planners say their business is in demand (cnn.com)

Continue reading »]]> While you can take this post as support for “free speech” and “protection of our right to privacy on the internet” I am doing neither. I am simply taking forth the point I made in my previous post on careless emailing.

The truth is, everything you say or do on the internet is real. While the medium may be virtual, the implications and repercussions are real world! Your candid blog posts, your moody Facebook status, your random tweet or retweet can get you into real trouble.

Because today more than ever before, the internet is an extension of our conscious and unconscious minds. It representative of mass social behavior and trends within… with individual collectivism and variations being demonstrated 24/7/365.

Take for example, the curious case of Paul Chambers, who’s harmless emotional tweet at being stranded at an airport, led him to get arrested on a terrorism charge!

According to accounts carried on Green’s blog and in the British media, the 27-year-old was alarmed when heavy snow closed Robin Hood Airport, from which he was due to fly in order to see a friend he had met online.

In a message posted to dozens of followers on January 6, he stated: “Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get [it] together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”

The tweet might have faded into the obscurity of internet had it not been discovered by an airport duty manager browsing the internet five days later. The manager forwarded the offending tweet to his station manager, and – even though the threat was deemed “non-credible” – it was passed on to police.

On January 13, a week after the post, Chambers was arrested and questioned. The case file notes that “there is no evidence at this stage that this is anything other than a foolish comment posted on Twitter as a joke for only his close friends to see”, but he was charged and convicted in any case…

Read the rest of the story here via Sydney Morning Herald

While on one hand the authorities acted zealously to take action on the matter, the incident sparked a snowballing outrage across the internet by regular people all over the world who re-tweeted the original with an “IamSpartacus” hashtag! At last count there were over 5,000 tweets coming out in support of Paul Chambers, making it one of the top trending topics on Twitter!

One example: From @Aprilly

And the Tweet from the Airport in question (?!)

A spokeswoman for South Yorkshire Police, which originally arrested Chambers, scoffed and said “no” when asked if police planned on arresting any of Chambers’s online fans. But she refused to answer when asked why the thousands of jokey threats to blow Robin Hood Airport “sky high” would be treated any differently from Chambers’s original tweet that resulted in his arrest.

Now if you think this cannot happen in India, think twice. No I am not talking about the extralegal nonsense around long journey of Rohinton Mistry or the legal high-handedness in the arrest of a CEO in an MMS case but the fact that anything you say online can and will be held against you in a court of law!

The fact is you cannot make loose comments online without the law looking in on you, as is mentioned in this related article in Times of India -

If you thought only the English law was humourless and that in India doing a Chambers would not get one arrested, then you are wrong.

“A threat is a threat, irrespective of the context it is made in,” says Sanjay Pandey, an IPS officer and e-security expert lauding the action taken by the UK court. India’s Information Technology Amendment Act of 2008, Section 66 A says: “Any person who sends, by means of computer resource or a communication device, any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years with a fine.”

Pandey, like the UK judge, felt that the tweet was menacing and so the arrest, well-deserved. =The only difference is that in India, the arrest would happen only if someone informs the police about such a post.

Read the whole article in Times of India here.

Now that you got the point, check out the original source of the phrase “I Am Spartacus!” here!

Related Articles

• Twitter users re-tweet Paul Chambers’ “bomb threat”: #IAmSpartacus (boingboing.net)
• I am not Spartacus – any airport threat should be taken seriously, whatever the platform (matthewparsons.net)

Continue reading »]]>

Festive Digital Excitement

I am not complaining, but yesterday I received 38 SMS on my mobile, 11 wall comments on Facebook, 19 direct messages to my Inbox, 49 email,  and 7 e-card greetings – all wishing me a very Happy Diwali.

Last month, on my birthday, I received – and again, I am not complaining – over 80 wall posts on Facebook alone, besides the countless SMS and email, wishing me countless happiness and success.

While my mobile phone constantly buzzing can be a bit annoying, the posts on my wall, and the sheer number of greetings certainly got my ego whizzing.

How nice ~ so many people took the trouble to wish me. And I took the trouble to reply to every one of the over 100 people who wished me on my birthday. And I will eventually get down to replying to everyone for the Diwali messages!

So much effort, despite the so little time we have spare in our lives today. But then I realize, thanks to the new digital media we have at our disposal today, people actually love doing this!

People love sending out those SMS and wall posts, letting you know they remember, and letting you know they care. What’s more, its effortless, takes less than 30 seconds to think and send, and costs virtually nothing!

This leads to what I will now call FDE: Festive Digital Excitement

Festive Digital Excitement is quite simply defined as festive excitement fueled by digital media – and it manifests in five different ways:

1. Pavlovian FDE
This is FDE that’s prompted by technology and the medium. Example, you sign into Facebook and notice on your right “Events – Oneofmy Friendski’s birthday”, or you see an update that says “Another Postwalla wrote on Friendski’s wall for his birthday”… and you click on the link, and it takes you to a form where you enter “Heyy happy birthday! have a good one!” ~ Tada!! there’s your Pavlovian Festive Digital Excitement!

2. Faked FDE
This is FDE indulged by people you don’t or hardly know,  but have somehow landed up on your “friend” list, or on their “mailing list”. This includes people like the headhunter who’s never met you, but has heard of you and managed to get onto your facebook; this includes the property dealer who got your email off your RWA address book;

3. Relationship FDE
This is the FDE exhibited by your bank, your insurance agent, your travel agent, your AC, TV and mobile phone manufacturer… basically birthday or festive greetings sent by whoever you filled up a form for – Warranty Card, Visitors Book, Feedback Form, etc. Always automated, you can bet your life this is one of those made-by-machine-untouched-by-man “warmest greetings from ColdCorporation” Yeah, right. Like my bank has a heart, and its feelings are overflowing from both email and sms servers!

4. Wtf FDE
This is the really bizarre Festive Digital Excitement, and usually comes to you via SMS: “Dearest Nosh, Wishing you and your family a very happy diwali!” …and then blank… no name, and no, you don’t have this number saved. So you go “who the f* is this??” I even get similar sounding email with no names at the end, only an address like clevercatsomething@gmail… or somethingboilercompany@hotmail… Hello! if this is a personalised email, at least put down your real name!! As I said before: *wtf*

5. Hearfelt FDE
Okay, this is the real deal, the real McCoy. Personalised SMS or Email on festivals, starting with your name “Dear Nosh…”. Posts to your wall with interesting, or insightful greetings “Hey, Happy Birthday… And don’t worry, life begins at 40!”. Messages to your Inbox with a note and other news and questions. The birthday SMS at the stroke of midnight or thereabouts. And of course, the most heartfelt of all… the ones with voice – “Hiii Nosh… Happy Birthday… I hope I am not interrupting your party, but I had to wish you in person. I wish I could have been in India this year too, like I was for your birthday last year!” Of course, one can always tell when the greeting qualifies for this category, and clearly, it is the most preferred and treasured of the lot!

So there you have it, my own take, on my own new term: Festive Digital Excitement. The truth is, its all around us, and it is spreading.

PS. My dad, who is a complete technophobe, spent all of last week figuring out if his mobile phone (he finally ditched his landline for a ‘cell’ this year, at age 76!) allowed him to send the same message to different people. And after I showed him, he started at 7 am on Diwali morning excited as a child – he composed, added numbers, and sent his SMS greetings to 12 of his buddies across the country! Now that’s excitement!

Continue reading »]]> Yes, I am MasterChef in the House with Desperate Housewives… and I am having a Flash Forward about C.S.I  which is in the Amazing Race against Bigg Boss 4  who refuses to recognise How I Met Your Mother over LA Ink on one of our MTV Kickass Mornings.

Well, this article in Adage.com says You Are What You Watch… so tell me, who am I?

I think there is a lot of merit in this article, but, is it so easy to ‘categorise’ people by what they watch? and then target them with ads accordingly?

Well ho bhi sakta, aur nahin bhi ho sakta… (maybe, maybe not).

I think there are two larger type of audience classifications we need to recognise, before we break them down into further sub-types. It’s like landing at a website’s homepage and being given the option of surfing it in ‘hi-bandwidth flash’ mode, or low ‘bandwidth html’.

I think we have to first choose if we want to target the “typical” consumer, or the “atypical” one.

The typical audience is the simple and predictable one: It consists of people who watch the same genre of shows, have very obvious likes/dislikes and values, and are very loyal to their viewing habits.

So you have “housewives” watching ‘soppy afternoon soaps’ and Oprah. Then you have “guys” watching ‘action’  shows and Baywatch. You have “old men” watching only the news. And you have “youth” watching MTV and [V] Dare to Date.

Within these its easy choosing your audience, based on your stated brand personality and objectives.

The atypical audience is complex and unpredictable: It consists of more evolved, multi-faceted people. Women who are as comfortable with C.S.I Miami and 24, as they are with Frasier, Masterchef, and Koffee with Karan. Men who are as comfortable with Anthony Bourdain and Desperate Housewives as they are with NCIS, Alias and Fear Factor.

Actually with rising awareness, gender equality, emotional intelligence, and both men and women showing interest and enjoying things previously reserved for the opposite sex, the quality and complex texture of shows today has dramatically increased to everyone’s advantage.

Shows like Lie To Me, Boston Legal, Numb3rs, and countless other shows cut across gender, SEC and other traditional classifications and have evolved an audience of their own.

So “media buying” isn’t as simple anymore. And of course, TRPs and other archaic ratings are just an indication of numbers, not the quality or character of the audience. Which is why, to me the article is a great starting point, but nowhere near being an authority on “media planning” and/or “audience classification”

A New Web Of Understanding Audiences

I have a theory I strongly believe in. Traditional media planning will be greatly enriched, if we understand online audiences better.

Because the web is free floating, unscheduled and always on, and everywhere – people roam and consume it freely, and in a way that’s not only comfortable to them, but also reflects who they really are and what they really like.

This adds to my conviction that the internet is a great learning tool and a treasure-house of ‘people-watching’ and consumer understanding.

Unfortunately, most of the industry involved in the internet today is still old school, especially when it comes to online media buying and consumer engagement. We still carry the baggage of traditional media, thanks to “online media planning” being done today by either tech-geeks or traditional media buying drop-outs.

But that’s another story.

Until then we will continue to debate the merits of audiences and what they watch. And how what reflects what.

Meanwhile, the show(s) must go on!

Ps. Here’s the link to the article on Adage.com

Continue reading »]]> We are all coloured people, no matter what shade of skin we sport. Yes? or No? This is a debate playing out in my mind for quite some time now, and no, I am not talking about evil racism or issues of ethnicity!

I am talking about how our past experiences colour our thinking, and the way we deal with our present and our future.

I am wondering whether the journey we have traveled so far, actually strips us of “clarity of thought” and “real objectivity”, and influences our perspectives and interactions in the road ahead.

There is a school of thought, that strongly believes that the actions and reactions of people, is coloured by their history, their geography, their past lives, and most importantly their upbringing and the way their mothers were and the way they dealt with them.

This past of course, includes childhood memories, securities/insecurities, family finances, education or lack of it, youth, surroundings, peers and other influencers, first job, first boss, ex girlfriend, bossy neighbors… everything.

Yes, of course this is true! I whole heartedly agree with this thinking that our present is a summary of our past. And that the way we will deal with the future, depends upon what we learn’t in the past.

But wait a minute… is that really bad?? Does the fact that we may not be starting out on a clean slate of life, take away our ability to think straight, make correct decisions, and do the right thing?

And who decides which perspective is coloured and which is not?

Like a wise man once said “let the one who has never sinned, cast the first stone!” And the truth is, there’s not a single person on this earth, who can claim to be ‘not coloured by his or her past’.

Because, the learnings from our past, are actually what we commonly call “experience”?

So the questions really is, where does Experience cross the line, and become Negative Bias

To my mind, the crux of the matter lies in “intent”.

Where the intent is good, the perspective is uncoloured. People with ‘mutual good’ intrinsic to their intent, cannot be called coloured people in the negative sense.

But where the intent is laced with an agenda to deceive, manipulate or influence for selfish one-sided gain, it becomes a negative bias.

So the question to ask yourself when faced with a seemingly “colourful” situation is “can I trust the person? what is the intent? is it self serving, or mutually beneficial?”

If your answer is yes, you can trust the other person, because you do not believe the person would want to harm you, or cheat you out of the truth and mutual benefit – firstly, congratulations, because such people are rare to find, so hold on to them.

Then the question is, if you know the intent is good, but the issue is contentious, what do you do?

Again, the answer is simple, and a very important thing to do in relationships:
Separate the individual, from the issue at hand.

Yes, good people sometimes have crazy thoughts and can also do bad things. This doesn’t necessarily make them bad.

You need to target the issue, not the person involved in it.

Because if you don’t, you yourself run the risk of being coloured in your reactions and interactions. Because your own intent will be to challenge the person you trust, rather than the issue they’re raising!

In summary, yes, we are all coloured people. And the colour we carry, is what makes us human, and enriches us with experiences that make life beautiful and exciting.

Colour is what adds life, to what would otherwise be a boring, clinical, and black ‘n white existence.

So wear your colour proudly. And of course, share it wisely!

Continue reading »]]>

Image via Wikipedia

There’s a lot being written and a lot being said about the recent “protectionist” stance adopted by some states, and the rising voices against “outsourcing” in the US. I have been watching from the sidelines, because it doesn’t affect me directly, as yet, but I know it may soon… I read something today that pushed me to add my voice to the issue as well!

The truth is, this outcry in the US is not just about losing jobs, but about a much larger American fear of unexpected real competition across the board, and insecurity arising from (and if I may quote Nayan Chandra, editor of YaleGlobal Online) “…The country’s worn-out infrastructure, failing education system and lack of political consensus have prevented it from riding a new wave to prosperity.”

Here’s the candid, thought provoking article by Thomas L. Friedman in NYTimes.com that provoked my blogging this. First, a key excerpt, and then the whole article linked below. Think about it America… And wake up!

With President Obama scheduled to come here (India) next week, at a time when more than a few U.S. politicians are loudly denouncing immigration reforms, free trade expansion and outsourcing, more than a few Indian business leaders want to ask the president: “What’s up with that?” Didn’t America export to the world all the technologies and free market dogmas that created this increasingly flat, global economic playing field — and now you’re turning against them?

Read the whole article by Thomas L. Friedman at NYTimes.com here

Continue reading »]]>

In life there are two broad kind of people: Givers, and Takers. And you will come across them in both your personal and professional lives. While this is the obvious/visible definition/observation, you will find there are two subsets to these as well – kind of like wolves in sheep’s clothing, and also sheep in wolves clothing.

What? Yes, allow me to elaborate. First with the two main types:

The Givers:

People who do things for other people. Provide emotional, physical, financial, and any other kind of support others need – from near and dear ones, to sometimes even random strangers.

What do Givers do: Givers get joy and satisfaction in giving. And you will find a “giver” among family, friends, even colleagues and business associates. These are the ones who drop by with food if you are unwell or when your cook is on leave; they are the ones who stay up at night with you listening to your life’s woes on the phone and give you the much-needed shoulder to cry on; they are the colleagues who will support your ideas in the office even if there’s nothing in it for them; they are the ‘clients’ who give you space and respect for what they’ve hired you for in the first place.

What makes them tick: Them adding to your happiness, well-being and success gives them great joy. Mutual benefit makes them tick.

How to spot a Giver: Look for the happiest smiling person in the room who is surrounded by people who are also happy and smiling that’s probably your man or woman! Think of who you could call in the middle of the night if you have a problem – who you know will do it willingly, not because of a relationship or because it needs to be done – and there’s your “Giver”. Think of the people raising their voice against injustice, poverty and getting down and dirty in the trenches to make a difference… think of those fighting corruption, pollution, poaching and other social, economic, political and environment malaise… they are your “Givers”

The perils of being a Giver: Often unappreciated, often misjudged for their intentions, often taken advantage of… “Givers” are always swimming against the tide of social insensitivity and greed.

Givers are also known to suffer from loss of ‘self’ and a ‘lack of making life good for themselves’, which is a feeling often introduced into their heads by the selfish Takers in their lives in the garb of “but what about you!?”

The Takers:

These are the people who only know how to take – take up your time, your hospitality, your support, your money, your credit, your emotions, your strength, and your energies. They are selfish and get off on getting people to do things for them.

What do Takers do: Takers get joy and satisfaction in taking. And unfortunately, you will find a “taker” in every family, friends circle, and among colleagues and business associates. They are the ones who don’t wait in queues, they are the relatives who expect you to do stuff for them and will land up in your home and take it over on every ‘occasion’, they are the bossy colleagues who expect you to do things for them yet won’t reciprocate, they are the ‘clients’ who disrespect you and your team time and efforts, they are the ones who buy bags made of endangered animals, they’re the ones with the huge carbon footprint, and they are the ones who don’t do anything for society and life in general around them.

What makes them tick: Getting people to do things for them is intrinsic to their character. Their wanting everything for themselves and all at one time is what drives them. They imagine they are the center of the universe for everyone. They are motivated by selfishness.

How to spot a Taker: They are the people in any gathering who are surrounded by people – but only as long as they’re in power, rich, popular or something that forces people to be around them. Think of who you cannot call in the middle of the night if you have a problem – or who will respond grudgingly out of a relationship or duty – and there’s your “Taker”. They’re the loud and demanding people in family functions, meetings, restaurants, almost everywhere.

The perils of being a Taker: People tire of “Takers” very quickly, and will dump them even more quickly if there isn’t a strong reason for them to keep the “taker” in their lives.

“Takers” have delusions of their selves and believe people actually like doing or must do things for them – and get a rude shock and behave badly when they realise the contrary! Takers also are deluded into believing they have a right to everything they want, irrespective of the consequences to others, society and life in general.

Now for the sub-types -

The “Taker” Givers:

They masquerade as, and are often mistaken for Givers. But these are the people who only “give” in order to “take”. Their giving is conditional and contains intrinsic expectations of “return gifts”. They give only as much as they think they can get back in return.

Fair-weather friends, or “matlabi people” is how you have often recognized and referred to them.

The “Giver” Takers:

Again masquerading as, and often mistaken as Givers, these are the most complex and difficult ‘Takers’ to spot!

Often, they don’t realize their own motivations. Because they get great joy in ‘giving’, and feel really good when they have ‘made a positive difference and helped‘ someone. And they will go to the ends of the earth to find people with problems and help them out.

In this very ‘seeking out of people with problems‘, lies the “taker” in them. Because their real motivation for ‘giving’ is what they ‘take’ back in return – which is ratification of their own self and their ability to make a difference. They need to be ‘wanted’ and ‘appreciated’. This is a vindication of their own beliefs from the fact that someone is listening to them, and it is helping them.

Therefore the key difference between the pure “Givers” and the “Giver Takers” is motivation.

The purists are motivated by larger good and don’t care if they get back anything, and will be delighted if they wake up one day to find everyone’s problems have been solved and the world is a happy satisfied place.

The Giver Takers on the other hand are motivated by the need of other people to receive – and if they actually wake up one morning to a world of happy and satisfied people, they would be extremely unhappy ~ because they’re suddenly out of a job and their reason d’être.

In Summary most people in this world are takers, albeit with different degrees of selfishness. The world of Takers is driven by selfish agenda, and the world we live in today, is proof of this problem.

On the other hand, there are very few selfless giving people in the world. But it is these tiny lot of “giving” people who make a big difference – with their little acts of kindness, their gentle nurturing ways, their selfless support, their own lack of ego, and their placing society and others ahead of themselves.

These are the “Giving” people who are going around today, changing the way we deal with one another, changing business ethics, bringing progressive social change, enriching civil society, and overall changing global culture.

The irony is most of us claim to be religious people – of one faith or another. Yet almost every one of us forgets, that at the core of each and every religion – lies the virtue of selfless giving. Amen.