A different look at leadership in training

“A leader is the one who knows the way, goes the way and shows the way.” – John Maxwell

Leaders are the backbones of our society. Imagine a society where there is no person to lead – it would be a place filled with followers who lose their original objective of following. We are privy to the most basic forms of leadership like the authoritative style, the autocratic style, the democratic style and so on. However, let us look at leadership in training in an easier way – creating, for all intents and purposes, a new method of presentation of leadership styles in training. Let us now refer to a research paper presented by Paul B. Thornton, Professor, Business Administration, Springfield Technical Community College, USA. This paper uses a different approach to determine the types of leaders in every society. As every other paper, this one isn’t void of error. However, it does look at an interesting phenomenon in an even more interesting way.

Types of leaders:

1. Thought Leaders: Thought leaders possess the power to make change through ideas. For generations, people have been fascinated by new ideas. This isn’t really surprising as the want to ideate is in our DNA and it is only natural to crave for ideation. Thought leaders communicate with their followers by promising creation and implementation of new ideas which ultimately becomes their selling point. In a training set-up, they require the utmost creative control of their sessions both with content as well as presentation. Also, thought leaders often either fail or they succeed – there is no concept of being ‘average’ here.

Examples– Jack Welch, Steve Jobs, Dr. W. Edwards Deming

2. Courageous Leaders: Courageous leaders stick to the morals and values that they believe in, come what may. Their opinions or methodologies do not waver even in times of considerable risks & hardships. They have a vision and they want to pursue it. In a training set-up, courageous leaders can come-off as stubborn and arrogant but display a high level of consistency.

Examples – Rosa Parks, Abraham Lincoln, Coleen Rowley

3. Inspirational Leaders: These leaders focus on their connection with the public/audience. Their passion is what drives them to promote change and maintain positivity in practice. They are committed to their beliefs which make the public emotionally attached to them. They are motivators of the highest grade and help improve relationships with people. The most important thing in a training room for a trainer is to connect with his/her trainees and inspirational leaders have mastered this art form. By connecting with the trainees, the message intended to be communicated is easily decoded.

Examples – Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King Jr., Pat Summit

4. Servant Leaders: Servant leaders, as the name suggests, are prime helpers. They frequently ask the question – “How can I help?” and are always looking to identify and meet the needs of others rather than to acquire power, wealth and fame for themselves. Servant leaders are often found wanting under circumstances where assertion of authority is required. They are generally timid and seek to avoid confrontation. Servant leader-trainers will be admired and appreciated by trainees due to their selfless nature. However, trainees do tend to identify the weaknesses of servant leader-trainers to gain the upper hand in the classroom.

Examples – Mother Teresa, Oprah Winfrey, Max DePree

No two leadership styles are the same; every person has their own unique style of communicating with their followers/subordinates which suits their own strengths and weaknesses. Be it thought leaders, courageous leaders, inspirational leaders or servant leaders, the idea is constant – to get the message across.

Dealing with various personalities within a classroom

“Why are we all so different from each other? Why does a person want to stay quiet while the other won’t stop talking about Michael Jackson and the pop brigade?” When a professor at Harvard brought this question up for discussion, he received the most intellectually satisfying response. “Because we are humans brought about by natural selection. We have expanded our geographical boundaries in search of food and shelter, thereby creating the morally questionable concept of distance. Distance is equally proportionate to change and different people brought up, groomed and raised in different geographies behave differently.”

Every person is different, be it the way he/she looks or the way he/she behaves and responds to situations. This is the most challenging aspect of training. This is because people are innately trained in their early years to behave in a certain way and when there comes a time to train them (in adulthood) on a particular issue which clashes with their original ideology, their behavioral instinct objects.

A good school teacher will have a field day in judging the character and personality of a student over a period of 12 months. As a corporate trainer, what is harder though, is dealing with different personalities in a classroom for only a short period of time. There isn’t any time to judge a particular person or to longitudinally interact with the said person.

A good trainer cares about the different personalities in the room and respects them. A great trainer finds out why their personalities are different and adapts his/her training methodology to suit a certain system in order to reach every person in the room. A trainer can never use the cookie-cutter approach with a group of trainees. If he/she does, only the trainee (s) who innately resembles the trainer in mass outlook, world-views or behavioural patterns can truly understand the message being communicated.

Let us look at some of the different personalities in every class room:

1. Bully – As a trainer, bullies are a nightmare. They not only pick on other trainees, they are also so-called anti-establishment. Recognizing a bully in a classroom is easy as their body language is hardly challenging to decipher. They usually cross their arms (a sign of insecurity) and bear an arrogant look on their faces. Dealing with them requires a substantial amount of time and a firm approach as they tend to disagree with almost everything the trainer says or represents.

2. Class Clown – Class Clowns are usually people who enjoy a sense of humor that they think is better than the others’, which ultimately might not be a bane for the trainer. The trainer needs to acknowledge his/her jokes but also make it very clear that the session is under his/her control and not the trainees’.

3. Clueless – These trainees do not understand general sarcasm and social cues that the others do. The trainer needn’t be very worried about these trainees’ behavior; however the bigger problem would be comprehension, especially when the session is about the social structures of the society.

4. Natural Leader – These trainees are, to put it plainly, the easiest to teach. The other trainees look up to them and mirror their personalities. Leaders are hard-working and understand the problems of the trainer and hence will pay full attention (thereby influencing others to do so) to the session. Sometimes, these trainees are hated for their leadership skills and although others agree to the views of the leader, they wouldn’t like him/her as a social being.

These are the most basic types of personalities in a classroom. A great trainer will identify certain traits of the trainees and resonate to them collectively, trying to make the same impact with every trainee. After all, there would be no fun in training if all trainees had the same personality; juxtaposing robots being programmed to perform certain functions wouldn’t be then a laughable thought.

Hegemony & Imperialism

India was imperialized. So were the Unites States of America, Australia and many other countries. One may wonder what the difference between imperialism and hegemony is. One may also mistake these two terms to be the same (they are not). Basically, imperialism is the direct power of one country over another whereas hegemony is the indirect power of a country over another. There’s colonialism too when we talk about our geographical landscape and its succinct resume but let’s save that topic for another day.

Before I go any further, let me make everyone understand the difference between these two terms. Imperialism is when you take control and rule another country through colonization or exertion of military influence. What America did to Iraq according to me is a blatant attempt at imperialism (asserting power to rule) in the modern world although they screamed ‘hegemony’ (guidance & leadership). One true example of imperialism is the British Empire’s rule over India. The British governed India for about 200 years and made rules for everybody to follow. We can now contrast it with India’s hegemony over Nepal where India majorly helps the administration of Nepal in making decisions but lets the ultimate power of decision making go to the Government of Nepal. Another example of Hegemony is the Caribbean where the American countries help many islands function as separate independent countries.

I recently read a book which brilliantly brought out the societal norms surrounding the ideologies of imperialism & hegemony. The society, especially the American one, thinks Hegemony is cool and regards it as ‘desirable’ or ‘admirable’. This has not only spurred people to think about America as a very liberal and benevolent empire but also has changed moral terrain of every citizen in the world. I feel that the idea of ruling another state or territory – the idea of imperialism & hegemony has brought the idea of ‘dominance’ in this society. Dominance can be anything – male dominance, dominance of locals in a classroom, dominance of a particular political party in a state, dominance of a certain race in the society and others similar to these ones.

Dominance as an ideology in itself rose from our mythological stories & tales like the Mahabharata & Ramayana and has paved the way for the imperialistically infused thinking of a common man. I’ll even go as far as saying that imperialism has found its way in popular culture (note, not pop culture). Hegemony is a part of imperialism but it can never be the other way round.

An Interview With Kannada TV’s Most Famous Personality!

 Mr Ranganath Bharadwaj

We want to hear the most important things from the best people when it comes to news & media. I take pride in knowing that I sat down with Ranganath Bharadwaj, Kannada TV’s most beloved anchor and investigative journalist. I wanted to get his opinion about India’s independence and media’s involvement in it and boy was I in for a treat! Here is an excerpt from the interview: 

Naresh: What role did media play in our independence struggle? 

Mr Bharadwaj: There are so many contributions by the media but let me start off by saying that media was not at all strong in those days. If there was electronic media back then, perhaps we could have got our independence much earlier. The major Indian media houses in the 1940s were owned by well-known freedom fighters like Bal Gangadhar Tilak & Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhiji said that the media can either give people complete light or complete darkness and in this case it was the light. 

The people had nothing else to rely on except for these newspapers. They wanted to believe they could be free from the shackles of the British and this is what urged them on. The messages that the freedom fighters gave out in their newspapers reached millions of Indians. This caused unity at a crucial time in the 1940s. The fact that certain so-called ‘controversial’ newspapers were written and printed without the knowledge of the British is what made media a dangerous in-tangible weapon. After having read a lot about media’s role in our Independence, it is safe to say that media played one of the biggest parts for our Independence if not the biggest. 

Naresh: Let me be very honest here. I know about Honey Singh & Rakhi Sawant but I don’t know the name of one single freedom fighter that is alive. I’m sure this is the case with most of the youth in this generation. Don’t you think this is media’s fault? 

Mr Bharadwaj: I thought we agreed that you would go easy on me! Actually we do have freedom fighters like Doraiswamy sir on our shows. But I agree with what you are implying. I completely agree that freedom fighters are not ‘hot news’ and they would not improve the TRPs of a news channel. Let’s hope at least during August and January, the people who fought to secure our freedom are showcased by the media and felicitated and by God do they deserve it!

In Conversation With Mr Bharadwaj

Naresh: As a prominent T.V personality, what are the major challenges you face? 

Mr Bharadwaj: To be frank, every day is a challenge for me. In fact, you will find many journalists who say the same thing. When you are in this industry, anything can happen. In the morning you get a promotion and in the evening you find out the chief guest has dropped out of a major show in the last moment. What would you do in that situation? I once had tuberculosis and had applied for a day off and it got approved. Luck was not on my side and a co-worker had to attend to an emergency family issue and I ended up being on T.V from 6 AM to 10 PM since it was the election results day. 

There are always challenges when it comes to different authoritative people. As you might know, the TV channel I work for currently is very public-issue oriented and we try to tackle and help the public with their particular issues. This requires us to be bold and demand justice where it is needed. During this course, we might get into a few tussles and might make a couple of enemies. Handling the people who you don’t have a good relationship with will then be your biggest problem. It is very difficult to handle the pressure but you will definitely learn to deal with these challenges with experience. 

Naresh: Wow. Alright, one final question! Tell us how you celebrate your independence day. 

Mr Bharadwaj: My Independence days have become a yearly routine! Every year, I make it a point to hoist a flag either in my own house or attend a flag hoisting ceremony in the neighborhood with my family. There isn’t a single year I haven’t done this! Without family, my independence day would not be the same. I look at my family as the people who gave my personal freedom and that was all I required. 

Naresh: Sir, thank you so much for your valuable insight. It really enhanced my respect for not only you but also for your TV Channel for all the things they have done to our society. Thank you!

Subramanian Swamy: The Un-trumpeted Hero Of Indian Polity

    Subramanian Swamy

The title of ‘Protagonist’ can hardly be attributed to a person with so-called Hindu extremist ideologies. Subramanian Swamy is one such person who is barely in the limelight but deserves to be. Who can get away with calling Sonia Gandhi ‘a fifth-class pass’ or calling Priyanka Gandhi ‘an alcoholic’ without much media scrutiny, let alone having their head held high?

In 2011, Mr Swamy wrote an article advocating disfranchisement of Muslims who were not ready to embrace the fact that both Hindus and Muslims have the same ancestral line. This article caused him a lot of things in life – Harvard dropped the courses he was teaching, media criticized him for communal hate and his personal life was being monitored closely by his detractors, for whom he couldn't care less about. However, this article garnered huge support from the right wing followers and that, along with the intent of the article was his objective.

While many people call him anti-Muslim, he asks his critics to stop speaking in hyperbole and argues that all religions in India have the same core values. Although he is a staunch Hindu, his secular credentials are amply exhibited in his marriage to a Parsi woman. He also points to the fact that his own daughter is married to a Muslim man. Mr Swamy has studied law and it shows. He has supported the abolition of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution un-disguisedly. He was the one who submitted a petition against A. Raja in the 2G scam case to the Supreme Court of India. This led to the arrest of A. Raja in 2012 and his subsequent imprisonment for 15 months. This act by Mr Swamy unearthed one of the biggest and most infamous scams of India. While Sonia Gandhi filed a fake affidavit citing a foreign degree to the Election Commission, Mr Swamy filed a case in the High court to impose a fine on Ms Gandhi. Ms Gandhi later admitted that it was a ‘mistake’ and apologized to the Election Commission.

Mr Swamy’s experience with the Planning Commission of India and as a Cabinet Minister makes him an extremely reliable person to his party. When one juxtaposes Mr Swamy and Mr Kejriwal, one can undeniably see that Mr Swamy is the better executor of ideas when it comes to fighting corruption and this has won him many an admirer. If Mr Swamy doesn't merit a place in the Indian political folklore then I don’t know who does.

COMMUNICATE WITHOUT ACTUALLY COMMUNICATING! - Implicit Communication Theory

Communication is not only about words, body language, gestures and expression but also about conveying things without using any of the above methods. At first look, one might ask how a person can communicate to another without using words or expressions. There is indeed a form of communication which we rarely delve into – implicit communication. Researchers love to include this form of communication into the Behavioural Implicit Communication (BIC) theory.

Implicit communication refers to the message(s) we ‘give off’ from our deeds/actions which may or may not be intentional. By simply performing an action, we send a message to our partner(s) in the interaction. This message may be intentional or unintentional, i.e. the sender wants that the receiver knows that he/she is performing that action or not. A classic example of this can be seen in restaurants. A customer orders an item in the menu and the chef prepares it. When the customer consumes the item, the chef, intentionally or not, is communicating with the customer and allowing him to make a positive or a negative judgement on his ability to cook.

After a lot of research and contrastive thinking, I have come up with other scenarios which will act as examples for implicit communication. For better understanding, I will divide the scenarios into ‘intentional implicit communication’ and ‘intentional or unintentional implicit communication’. Also, these scenarios are what one might like to call ‘day-to-day activities’.

Intentional Implicit Communication:

1.   When a person wears a shirt he received as a gift from his friend, he is implicitly communicating with his friend that he appreciates the gift and is grateful for it. This act is intentional because the person wants his friend to know that he is grateful for the gift.

2.   When a person leaves a coat or a hat on his seat while he leaves to the restroom, he is communicating with the people around him that he will be back and the seat is occupied.

Intentional or Unintentional Communication:

1.   When students obtain good marks, the teachers are communicating intentionally or unintentionally about their prowess to the parents. Regardless of whether it is intentional or unintentional, the mark that the student obtains is directly proportional to the perceived notion about the teachers by the parents. (Please note, this example holds good mostly in lower grades/standards of school).

2.   When Car ‘A’ moves towards the right (or left) on a highway (without an indicator), it intentionally or unintentionally communicates to Car ‘B’ which is behind Car ‘A’ that the lanes are being changed. (Please note, this kind of indiscipline of not using indicators on a highway can only be found in India!)

Implicit communication theories are often derived from animal communication. This form of communication is also based on ‘signification’ which is ‘the semiotic ability of cognitive agents’.  For example, the ability to take ‘smoke’ as a sign of ‘fire’ or to relate ‘thirst’ with a ‘drinking agent’; these notions are drilled in to us from birth and are signs of communication that goes beyond simple perception. 

TELEVISION MEDIA BEARS BRUNT IN MCC DISCUSSION

“Public outrage justified, T.V Channels not helping” say panellists in ‘Naming and Shaming: Sexual Violence and Media’ - an informative & slightly provocative discussion on media’s role in the recent anomalous events of rape which was hosted by Mt Carmel College. The event was presented by Media Watch Bengaluru and was held in the Mt Carmel Auditorium on August 1, 2014. The discussion panel included Ravi Hegde, Group Editor, Udayavani; Bansy Kalappa, Journalist, News 9; Ashok Murthy, Managing Partner, CorLit Legal; ML Madhuraveena, SP, CID and Shaibya Saldanha, counsellor and Co-founder, Enfold India. The event was moderated by Media Watch’s very own Ammu Joseph who is also an author and a journalist.

Ms Joseph kicked off the discussion by trying to explain the consequences of sensationalizing incidents related to rape. “News channels obviously want higher TRPs and hence they sensationalize everything” she said. She did agree that news channels could not do much about it because their success is directly proportional to their TRPs.  Ms Saldanha, although critical of T.V, heaped praises on all forms of media for creating awareness about the present situation. She was also of the opinion that the victims be called ‘survivors’ and not ‘victims’ as it looks at things in a positive light.

Mr Murthy, a lawyer, spoke about why the identity of the victim and/or the accused is kept secretive at least until the court has provided a judgement. He said it challenges the mere existence of the victim and that the families will not be spared either. Ms Madhuraveena confirmed that there will be no disclosure of the identity while the case was being investigated. She provided us with a little inside information so-to-speak about how every policeman has to undergo a ‘Gender Sensitization workshop’ which aims at training the police to treat genders in a different manner under different circumstances. She also suggested a spokesperson for the police, who can inform the media about the progress of the case. “This would definitely help to settle media unrest while the case is being investigated” she said.

Mr Hegde, a journalist of print media, had some harsh words for T.V channels and spoke about channels fighting for TRPs and thereby diluting the news. He said print media is much more sensitive when it comes to disclosure of information. He agreed that this is because T.V is real-time and print is not. He also pointed out the fact that the courts are now functioning quicker due to the monumental hype surrounding sexual violence.

Ms Saldanha had a very valid point about online news regarding the recent rape of a 6 year-old in Bangalore. She said the news will remain forever on the internet. “One can only imagine how the 6 year-old will feel 20 years from now when her kids read this news” she said. Ms Madhuraveena also brought up the topic of keeping track of convicted sex offenders in every neighbourhood. She said “India has to adopt the model of U.S.A when it comes to the disclosure of sex offenders in every neighbourhood”. Every panellist agreed with Ms Madhuraveena on this and said this should be made a high priority demand from the public.

When the Q&A session started, Gaurav, a Mass Communication student from Jain University questioned the motives of the recent ‘bundh’ in Bangalore citing lack of public participation. Mr. Murthy responded by saying that this was a start and that the awareness will gradually spread. Shweta, another Mass Communication student from Jain University asked if privatization of radio news has come at the right time. Mr Hegde responded by saying that the privatization of radio news did indeed come at a bad time. He said that the word ‘chaos’ wouldn’t be enough to describe the situation in an already chaotic society if the privatization was successful.

Ms Vasanthi Hariprakash, a very famous journalist who was present at the discussion disagreed with Mr Hegde and said that the privatization would definitely be good for the media as a whole. She said radio has always been the ‘forgotten media’ and is much more than just an item song on a warm Sunday afternoon.

Mr Kalappa who had been unusually silent throughout the discussion, offered his opinion on the matter of pornography being one of the major causes for sexual violence. All the panellists agreed and Mr Hegde pointed out that ‘sexuality education’ needs to be taught from school level. “Sexuality Education is not Sex Education. It is a form of education which instils respect for women and men equally. Kids need to know why it is wrong to do such things so that they can use their better judgement in later years of their lives” he said.

It was very clear that the panellists were open about their opinions. There was no diplomacy whatsoever and points were being made with an open mind and a clear conscious. The crowd was very warming to the people who were brave enough to question the panellists. They also reacted well to the opinions of the panellists. A few people in the crowd may disagree with certain points and opinions but I am sure that nobody will disagree when I say that this event was a grand success, not only in educating the masses but also in inducing passion to fight against sexual violence.