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 the future can be produced by 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 strength - 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 be followed by others... that is an ego, it is "ahankara". This is sin and abuse of 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 be followed by others... that is an ego, it is "ahankara". This is sin and abuse of the position.
This is my view.
R. Pithambaran
09421248119.
From India, Kolhapur
A very good question...!!
Despite the fact that the two mental positions are different, there is a very thin margin of difference between the two, especially when the observer cannot distinguish, 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 that the two mental positions are different, there is a very thin margin of difference between the two, especially when the observer cannot distinguish, 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 a few things like manners, behaviors, learning, teaching, and other stuff. Life is a mix and match coming to the point of ego. I wanted to ask you all, what will a person gain if he shows ego? Is that people's attention or respect? Nope, nothing. Well, I said what was on 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 Bhagavad 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 hundreds of modern-day consultants who insist that ‘BLOW your OWN TRUMPET or others would use it as a SPITTOON’ and THOUSANDS believe them. Hence, we see a lot of TRUMPET BLOWERS AROUND who want to push forward, and many times succeed in the corporate scenario.
The elaboration by Tajsateesh on ‘UNDERSTANDING by the MASSES based on PERCEPTION by 5 SENSES’ and its Limitation is classic. The strong believer in these 5 physical senses (as seen by him) may claim, for example, Lake Water as ‘PURE’ based on taste and vision (to the naked eye) whereas a microscopic observation (MAGNIFIED VIEW) may show the 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 a 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’ and ‘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) and hence the Pundits wisely did not classify ‘Good Ego’ (as ‘Bona fide’ or ‘Pal’ Ego) and ‘Bad Ego’ (as ‘Mala fide’ as ‘mal-Ego’) leaving the BRANDING to the- shall we say- ‘BENEFICIARY’ or the ‘SUFFERERS’.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
16However, for one person saying this, there are hundreds of modern-day consultants who insist that ‘BLOW your OWN TRUMPET or others would use it as a SPITTOON’ and THOUSANDS believe them. Hence, we see a lot of TRUMPET BLOWERS AROUND who want to push forward, and many times succeed in the corporate scenario.
The elaboration by Tajsateesh on ‘UNDERSTANDING by the MASSES based on PERCEPTION by 5 SENSES’ and its Limitation is classic. The strong believer in these 5 physical senses (as seen by him) may claim, for example, Lake Water as ‘PURE’ based on taste and vision (to the naked eye) whereas a microscopic observation (MAGNIFIED VIEW) may show the 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 a 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’ and ‘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) and hence the Pundits wisely did not classify ‘Good Ego’ (as ‘Bona fide’ or ‘Pal’ Ego) and ‘Bad Ego’ (as ‘Mala fide’ as ‘mal-Ego’) leaving the BRANDING to the- shall we say- ‘BENEFICIARY’ 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. Otherwise, every individual has every right to have a strong opinion on any matter. By the way, when making 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. Otherwise, every individual has every right to have a strong opinion on any matter. By the way, when making 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 who are 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 a 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 who are 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 a 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 judgments/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: possessions.
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 go 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: the 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 in 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.
Regards,
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 judgments/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: possessions.
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 go 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: the 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 in 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.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Readers,
There is a subtle difference between the two. Strong views with adamancy are called ego. One can't say one's view is always correct because our views become correct only when our objective is achieved. Our views could neither be proved nor disproved in a lab. As everybody knows, management is neither science nor art; the validity of our views depends on the result.
Chandrasekaran, Madurai.
From India, Madurai
There is a subtle difference between the two. Strong views with adamancy are called ego. One can't say one's view is always correct because our views become correct only when our objective is achieved. Our views could neither be proved nor disproved in a lab. As everybody knows, management is neither science nor art; the validity of our views depends on the result.
Chandrasekaran, Madurai.
From India, Madurai
Practically speaking, ego is universally present, and it is manifested as rigidity, the degree of which varies according to the situation. It is possible that many times a junior would tell the boss, "SIR, YOU ARE RIGHT" (half the sentence), the latter unheard part of the sentence being BECAUSE YOU ARE THE BOSS. (Situation Prevails)
Long ago, I read an interesting description of an individual's thought process about a situation or a point: There are four possible cases...
1. I KNOW (that) I KNOW
2. I KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW
3. I DON'T KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW
4. I DON'T KNOW (that) I KNOW
With "I KNOW (that) I KNOW" (Knowledgeable) and "I DON'T KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW" (commenting upon everything around but seen as Stupidity by society), the individual (both types) would be clearly rigid. Here the branding of egoistic is bound to come.
In the case of individuals with acceptance of "I KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW" and "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" behavior is a stumbling block in that individual's progress).
Somehow, I feel compelled to compare it to temperature and fever in humans. A range of 97.6 F to 98.8 F (35.5 C to 37.00 C) axillary temperature is considered normal. Above this is fever or a physiologically abnormal condition.
All rich don't flaunt their wealth through jewelry. Thus, there seems to be a threshold for these things in the minds of people.
Similarly, the degree of expression of ego (which possibly is universal) makes for branding someone as an egoist.
As observed by Nikhil, the rigidity or laziness 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 into the work (ego?) or being lazy (inertia) would not participate wholeheartedly.
Thus, an egoist is a product mix of many factors and a persistent behavior 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...
1. I KNOW (that) I KNOW
2. I KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW
3. I DON'T KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW
4. I DON'T KNOW (that) I KNOW
With "I KNOW (that) I KNOW" (Knowledgeable) and "I DON'T KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW" (commenting upon everything around but seen as Stupidity by society), the individual (both types) would be clearly rigid. Here the branding of egoistic is bound to come.
In the case of individuals with acceptance of "I KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW" and "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" behavior is a stumbling block in that individual's progress).
Somehow, I feel compelled to compare it to temperature and fever in humans. A range of 97.6 F to 98.8 F (35.5 C to 37.00 C) axillary temperature is considered normal. Above this is fever or a physiologically abnormal condition.
All rich don't flaunt their wealth through jewelry. Thus, there seems to be a threshold for these things in the minds of people.
Similarly, the degree of expression of ego (which possibly is universal) makes for branding someone as an egoist.
As observed by Nikhil, the rigidity or laziness 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 into the work (ego?) or being lazy (inertia) would not participate wholeheartedly.
Thus, an egoist is a product mix of many factors and a persistent behavior 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
Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.