HUMAN RELATIONS

 

 

 

                                                                 HUMAN RELATIONS

 

Of many things in life, the most difficult and yet the most important is to sustain human relations. I reckon it difficult, because a high degree of tolerance and an ability to ‘swallow’ certain things determine the level of success in this sphere. If we scamper through happenings in our own lives, we may come across events which have ruined cordiality between people. Most such events would have been over trivial things that were disproportionately amplified because of unyielding ego on either side. Does it mean that we should not have personal preferences? Not so; one has to keep preferences under check while trying to keep our acquaintances intact. Another way of achieving a similar effect is, to carefully choose our “friends” so that the need to play down one’s preference stays relegated. It is an idea, hard to stick to.

The suggestion is no less intricate than the very prospect of good human relations. Driving home this point is easy enough if I recall that Universities have carved out PG

programmes, addressing Human Relation issues. Industries are keen to have personnel with such Degrees/ qualifications.  Such studies largely focus on skills of Ego-defusing / accepting ‘the other point of view’. Though not divinely, next to God, ego is omnipresent and negatively omnipotent. These days it is turning relevant to integrate “ego-defusing” as a part of every curriculum as much as the importance shown to environmental issues.

The basic difficulty:

A common feature that pervades daily life of every description is the unquenched desire for being heard. “Listen to me first” is a simultaneous demand held by everyone. At Some places, hierarchy may not permit the claim. But, it is there waiting to explode if we do not explore to defuse it. It is no doubt an act of compromise; still peace is valuable / less damaging. A desire to field one’s views in most if not all situations proves counter- productive; it also sets the atmosphere for rough weather in work places. The problem turns acute if personnel involved are of equal attainments. At such places, prudence has to prevail over while accommodating for other views without jeopardizing the best interests of the system or the process.

Getting over:

Patient listening to opposed views [if any] can do a lot of good to the general morale of people around. It defuses any tendency for grouping among persons. It encourages the expression of ideas and people do not hesitate to speak their mind. To begin with, it may appear inconvenient. Soon enough people come to recognize that we are not imposing personal views on any one. Automatically they learn to understand the philosophy of “give and take”. Any logical inference, by carefully exploring every perception, guides the final decision enhancing our image of impartiality.  Even if the final out- come does not satisfy everyone, there can be no grouse over the mechanism. Questions of doubtful deals can- not hold water. In the long run, people cherish the approach and respect our views. We can sustain a relationship of greater bondage / respectability.

Choices:

Probably we have little choice over the work group provided to us. It is improper to exercise choices among them for any reason. It is here that one has to develop attitudes of equanimity and level-headed assessments. Still, one has to maintain visible neutrality in handling situations without succumbing to personal differences. When it comes to our own circle of friends it is wiser to assess, with whom to confide and to what limits.

To continue                                                                                                      Prof. K. Raman