@sarwar

@sarwar 11 April 2021

The biggest happy news in April 2021 is the start of the holy month of Ramadan on April 14! * Alhamdulillah *

@sarwar 22 February 2021

As soon as people make mistakes, we unknowingly As soon as people make mistakes, we unknowingly, or out of emotion, or out of guilt, or out of Satan's persuasion, make mistakes, do wrong, sin, and cover up the burden of sin with a thousand more lies to cover it up. Soon we may again realize this injustice or sin of ours, feel ashamed of ourselves or suffer from remorse. But I don't have the courage to reveal the truth, I keep weaving many more lies day after day for fear of facing the next storm of truth unveiling. But we should understand: if we do wrong or sin, a storm will arise in real life today or tomorrow, and it is needless to say about the storm of the hereafter. However, the longer the duration of this storm, the more severe the violence will be that it may be beyond my control to deal with it. But as soon as the self-confession may free us from the cover of this lie. So I want to say that it is the ultimate mistake of life to cling to lies day after day for fear of temporary storm or punishment. And this seems to apply to both our world and the hereafter. The right way to move forward in life is to confess your sins to the Creator as soon as possible and ask for forgiveness by acknowledging the truth to the people / people we have wronged and lied to in this world. (A little different writing and a very personal understanding)

@sarwar 22 February 2021

Every man wants not only a thousand people in his life but only one man to come and be the only one for him. Only he will understand him. All his bad moods and all his pride. .

@sarwar 18 February 2021

- The complaint is settled, Contact Furayah Right furayah -But don't fall in love with your loved ones:

@sarwar 31 January 2021

💐💐 Assalamualaikum... Good Afternoon how are you

@sarwar 17 October 2020

असफलता को दूर करने और जीवन में सफल होने के लिए प्रसिद्ध महिलाओं के आठ सुझाव यहां दिए गए हैं सफलता पाना कोई आसान काम नहीं है। जो किसी भी पुरुष या महिला के लिए एक मुश्किल काम है। एक महिला के लिए यह ज्यादा मुश्किल है। लेकिन दुनिया की कुछ सबसे प्रसिद्ध और सफल महिलाओं का कहना है कि जीवन में कुछ प्रमुख सिद्धांतों का पालन करने से किसी को भी सफल होने में मदद मिलेगी। 1। पहले खुद को रखो आप जिस भी जीवन में सफल होना चाहते हैं, आपको अपना ध्यान रखना सीखना होगा। यदि आप खुद को पहले नहीं रख सकते हैं, तो आप जीवन में संतुलन नहीं पाएंगे। इस मामले में, प्रसिद्ध अभिनेत्री एम्मा थॉम्पसन अपने शारीरिक और मानसिक स्वास्थ्य को देखने के लिए कहती हैं। 2। आगे बढ़ने से मत रोको द्वितीय विश्व युद्ध के दौरान जर्मनी में ऑशविट्ज़ एकाग्रता शिविर से लौटने वाले मनोवैज्ञानिक एडिथ एज ने हमेशा खुद को एक पर्वतारोही माना है। "जब एक पर्वतारोही चढ़ना शुरू करता है, तो वह फिसल जाता है, दो या तीन चरणों में गिर जाता है। लेकिन वह चढ़ाई करना बंद नहीं करता है। मैं उस तरह से फिसल जाता हूं, लेकिन मैं चढ़ना बंद नहीं करता, मैं कभी नहीं रुकता। ” 70 और 80 के दशक में, महिलाओं ने पश्चिमी देशों में कपड़ा कारखानों में काम किया। एडिथ के माता-पिता को ऑशविट्ज़ एकाग्रता शिविर में मार दिया गया था, वह बच गई। बाद में वह मनोविज्ञान का अध्ययन करने के लिए संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका चले गए। "लोग मुझे मारने, मुझे यातना देने में सक्षम होंगे। लेकिन कोई भी मेरी आत्मा और आगे बढ़ने की चेतना को समाप्त नहीं कर पाएगा।" दूसरे क्या सोच रहे हैं, इस बारे में सोचने की जरूरत नहीं है मशहूर कॉमेडियन और लेखक जो ब्रांड कहते हैं कि आपको दूसरों की परवाह करने की ज़रूरत नहीं है। क्योंकि आप विश्वास कर सकते हैं कि आप दूसरों के अनुमोदन के बिना अपने बारे में क्या सोचते हैं। "मुझे कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता कि दूसरे मेरे बारे में क्या सोचते हैं। मुझे अपना लुक पसंद है, लेकिन बहुत सारे लोग इसे पसंद नहीं करते हैं।" "मैंने विश्वास करना सीख लिया है, मैं कैसा दिखता हूं हमेशा कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता।" "यह मेरे दोस्तों या मुझसे प्यार करने वालों के लिए कोई बड़ी बात नहीं है। मुझे लगता है कि इसे याद रखना महत्वपूर्ण है।" 4। दृष्टिकोण बदलें कई बार बुरे पल में हम सोचते हैं कि हम दब गए हैं, या हम डूब गए हैं। लेकिन यह अलग तरह से सोचा जा सकता है, जैसा कि हम सोच सकते हैं कि कुछ नया किया गया है। अभिनेत्री केल्सी ओ'कीफ कहती हैं, "मेरा दृढ़ विश्वास है कि आपको यह तय करना होगा कि आप अपने जीवन या अपने निर्णय के बारे में कैसा महसूस करते हैं। हमें इसे सकारात्मक रूप से देखने की आदत बनाने की जरूरत है। ” नजरिए को बदलकर सकारात्मक के रूप में असफलता को देखें। "बीज बोना या बोना --- दोनों जमीन के नीचे या पानी के नीचे हो रहा है। लेकिन दो मामलों में इसका मतलब दो चीजें हैं, उनमें से एक बहुत ही नकारात्मक रवैया व्यक्त करता है। दूसरा एक सकारात्मक दृष्टिकोण है, जो आपकी सोचने की प्रक्रिया को प्रभावित करता है। ” "मेरे जीवन में कई ऐसे क्षण हैं जब मुझे लगा कि मैं मर गया हूं, लेकिन उन क्षणों में मैंने फिर से शुरुआत की।" 5। सकारात्मक लोगों के आसपास रहें एक मार्केटिंग गुरु, मैरी पोर्टस का कहना है कि अगर उसके आसपास हमेशा सकारात्मक लोग होते हैं, तो उसे अपनी क्षमताओं पर सवाल नहीं उठाना चाहिए या अपनी असफलताओं के बारे में संकोच नहीं करना चाहिए। "मेरी एजेंसी में हम उन लोगों को नियुक्त करते हैं जो प्रकाश फैलाने के लिए हैं, न कि वे जो अपमान में दूसरों को डुबो देते हैं।" "हम उन लोगों को पसंद करते हैं जो हमेशा सभी स्थितियों में सकारात्मक होते हैं, सब कुछ करने के लिए सहमत होते हैं और इसे पाने के लिए अपना सर्वश्रेष्ठ देते हैं," वे कहते हैं। "जो स्वयं ऊर्जा से भरे हैं वे दूसरों को प्रेरित कर सकते हैं। यदि आप सुधार करना चाहते हैं, तो उन लोगों से दूर रहें जो उदास या अभिमानी हैं।" । अपना सर हिलाओ ऑशविट्ज़ एकाग्रता शिविर से लौटने वाले मनोवैज्ञानिक एडिथ एज ने कहा, "किसी भी स्थिति में अपनी बुद्धिमत्ता का उपयोग करें।" "मेरी माँ कहती थी कि हम नहीं जानते कि कहाँ जाना है, हम नहीं जानते कि हमारे जीवन में क्या होगा। लेकिन जैसा कि किसी को नहीं पता कि हमारे सिर के अंदर क्या है, कोई इसे छीन नहीं सकता है। ” "मैं अमेरिका खाली हाथ आया, अंग्रेजी नहीं जानता था। लेकिन देखो, मैंने इस देश में एक प्रसिद्ध व्यक्ति से सम्मान के साथ स्नातक की उपाधि प्राप्त की है। मैं हर किसी को बताता हूं, आदमी की सबसे बड़ी ताकत उसका सिर हिला देने की क्षमता है।" । कभी-कभार खुद को छुट्टी दें अमेरिकी लेखक मिशेल लोरी का कहना है कि किसी व्यक्ति के लिए हर समय उसी तरह सफल होना संभव नहीं है। और अगर आप सफल नहीं हो सकते हैं, तो भ्रमित होने की कोई बात नहीं है। "हमें हर समय सिखाया जाता है कि हमें सब कुछ करने में सक्षम होना चाहिए। हमें हर समय रचनात्मक रहना होगा। लेकिन हमें आराम करने और नए सिरे से सोचने के लिए भी समय चाहिए। ” "एक व्यक्ति को अपने भीतर के शून्य को भरने के लिए समय की आवश्यकता होती है, साथ ही साथ अपने काम का मूल्यांकन करने के लिए अवकाश भी।" दिन के अंत में पांच मिनट हो सकते हैं, सोचें कि आपने पूरे दिन क्या किया, आपने इसे कैसे किया, आप इसे बेहतर कैसे कर सकते हैं। इस समय फोन कॉल को छोड़कर, बस अपने आप को टीवी देखने के बिना कुछ समय दें। । असफलता जीवन का अंत नहीं है यदि आप किसी चीज़ में असफल होते हैं, तो यह मत सोचिए कि आपका जीवन समाप्त हो गया है। बल्कि यह सोचें कि आपके जीवन में यह एक 'अल्पविराम' है जिसका अर्थ है एक छोटा ब्रेक, न कि एक 'फुलस्टॉप' या अंत। फिल्म व्यक्तित्व लिली कोलिन्स कहती हैं, "मैं हमेशा खुद को बताती हूं, 'नकारात्मक' होने का मतलब 'नहीं' है, लेकिन यह 'अभी नहीं' है।" ऐसा कोई कल नहीं होगा जो अभी नहीं हुआ है या अभी या वर्तमान में होने की संभावना है, इसका कोई मतलब नहीं है।

@sarwar 17 October 2020

7 طرق للنجاح النجاح مثل غزال ذهبي أو قطار الليل الأخير. الجميع يركض نحوه. السؤال الذي يدور في أذهان الجميع ، متى سيتم رؤية الغزال أم سأتمكن من اللحاق بالقطار؟ يحاول البعض عامًا بعد عام للنجاح ، وبعض النقاط في الملعب. مرة أخرى ، لا أحد يعمل بجد لتحقيق النجاح ويعيش حياة رتيبة. يمكن أن يقابل النجاح تحليق طائرة ورقية في السماء. كلما حاولت تحليق الطائرة الورقية ، كلما كان عليك سحب الخيط عكس الريح. بمجرد أن تهب الرياح ، ستبدأ الطائرة الورقية في الهبوط. يتحدث المؤلف والمستثمر ورجل الأعمال الأمريكي جيمس ألتشر عن سبع طرق للنجاح في منصبه على Cora Digest. يجب إعطاء أهمية للصحة كل من الصحة الجسدية والعقلية مهمة. لكن عاداتنا مرتبطة بالصحة. من السهل جدًا الانخراط في العادات السيئة ، عليك أن تمنح وقتًا للعادات الجيدة. لتكون ناجحًا ، تحتاج إلى الاعتناء بجسمك وممارسة الرياضة بانتظام. يجب التركيز على الأمور الفكرية. علينا أن نركز على تنمية الإبداع. يجب تجنب الأشخاص السلبيين والبيئة. كل شيء هو موضوع اليوم لا يوجد شيء مثل المستقبل أو الماضي ، المادة نسبية. أنت بحاجة إلى أكثر من الحظ للنجاح في الأعمال التجارية التابعة. إذا كنت تقوم بعمل جيد اليوم ولكن المستقبل العظيم في انتظارك. وإذا لم تقم بأي عمل اليوم ، ولكن غدًا ستقول إن ماضي لم يكن جيدًا. جرب كل يوم ، كل لحظة للعمل لنفسك. جنبًا إلى جنب مع العمل ، عليك أن تحرص على الحفاظ على الوقت على مدار الساعة من أجل تحسين عائلتك ونفسك. يمكنك محاولة تغيير نفسك حتى لو كانت 1 في المائة كل يوم. قل نعم أو لا بعناية يسيطر الأشخاص الناجحون على كل موقف تقريبًا. قل نعم لأي فرصة فكرية أو إبداعية. تعلم أن تقول دائمًا نعم للعمل الذي يمكن أن يطور الفرح أو التأمل. ببساطة فكر وتعلم تعلم التفكير في كل شيء بشكل عام. يجد الأطفال بساطة الحياة لأنهم يحاولون التفكير في كل شيء على أنه أمر بسيط. تدرب على التفكير مثلهم. ستزيد ممارسة التأمل المنتظم من قوة تفكيرك وعقلك الإبداعي. الكثير للقراءة نحن كبشر لا نعرف كل شيء. عليك أن تقرأ الكتب لتعرف. الكتب الخيالية والواقعية بجميع أنواعها. حاول تحقيق نجاح متعدد الأبعاد الملياردير الأمريكي وارن بافيت لا ينصح الشباب بالاستثمار في مكان واحد. ينصح بالاستثمار في العديد من الأماكن ، حتى إذا فشل أحد الاستثمار ، فهناك فرصة للمضي قدمًا في مكان آخر. عندما تنجح في شيء ما ، ركز على شيء آخر. يكسب المليونيرات في أمريكا الأموال من خمسة مصادر مختلفة على الأقل. أنت تسعى جاهدة لتحقيق النجاح في حياتك المهنية. ولكن حتى لو أتيحت لك فرصة التعليم العالي ، فأنت لا تقرأ ، أو أنك دفنت هوايتك في الكتابة. يسيطر الأشخاص الناجحون على كل موقف تقريبًا. الخوف مقابل القصور الذاتي أنت خائف من التحدث أمام الجميع. مرة أخرى ، لا يمكنك أن تقول بالضبط ما تريد قوله. يسيطر الأشخاص الناجحون على كل موقف تقريبًا. إذا كنت تعتقد أن ما تخاف منه على أنه خوف ، فهو خمول لك مدى الحياة. حاول المضي قدمًا من خلال التغلب على الخوف وتجنب القصور الذاتي

@sarwar 16 October 2020

For centuries, we have recognized the importance of networking. According to Brian Uzzi, a management professor at Northwestern University, networks come with three major advantages: private information, diverse skills, and power. By developing a strong network, people can gain invaluable access to knowledge, expertise, and influence. Extensive research demonstrates that people with rich networks achieve higher performance ratings, get promoted faster, and earn more money. And because networks are based on interactions and relationships, they serve as a powerful prism for understanding the impact of reciprocity styles on success. How do people relate to others in their networks, and what do they see as the purpose of networking? On the one hand, the very notion of networking often has negative connotations. When we meet a new person who expresses enthusiasm about connecting, we frequently wonder whether he’s acting friendly because he’s genuinely interested in a relationship that will benefit both of us, or because he wants something from us. At some point in your life, you’ve probably experienced the frustration of dealing with slick schmoozers who are nice to your face when they want a favor, but end up stabbing you in the back—or simply ignoring you—after they get what they want. This faker style of networking casts the entire enterprise as Machiavellian, a self-serving activity in which people make connections for the sole purpose of advancing their own interests. On the other hand, givers and matchers often see networking as an appealing way to connect with new people and ideas. We meet many people throughout our professional and personal lives, and since we all have different knowledge and resources, it makes sense to turn to these people to exchange help, advice, and introductions. This raises a fundamental question: Can people build up networks that have breadth and depth using different reciprocity styles? Or does one style consistently create a richer network? In this chapter, I want to examine how givers, takers, and matchers develop fundamentally distinct networks, and why their interactions within these networks have different characters and consequences. You’ll see how givers and takers build and manage their networks differently, and learn about some clues that they leak along the way—including how we could have recognized the takers at Enron four years before the company collapsed. Ultimately, I want to argue that while givers and takers may have equally large networks, givers are able to produce far more lasting value through their networks, and in ways that might not seem obvious. In 2011, Fortune conducted extensive research to identify the best networker in the United States. The goal was to use online social networks to figure out who had the most connections to America’s most powerful people. The staff compiled a list of the Fortune 500 CEOs, as well as Fortune’s lists of the 50 smartest people in technology, the 50 most powerful women, and the 40 hottest rising stars in business under age forty. Then, they cross-referenced this list of 640 powerful people against LinkedIn’s entire database of more than ninety million members. The winning networker was connected on LinkedIn to more of Fortune’s 640 movers and shakers than anyone else on earth. The winner had more than 3,000 LinkedIn connections, including Netscape cofounder Marc Andreessen, Twitter cofounder Evan Williams, Flickr cofounder Caterina Fake, Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz, Napster cofounder Sean Parker, and Half.com founder Josh Kopelman—not to mention the former chef of the Grateful Dead. As you’ll see later, this networker extraordinaire is a giver. “It seems counterintuitive, but the more altruistic your attitude, the more benefits you will gain from the relationship,” writes LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. “If you set out to help others,” he explains, “you will rapidly reinforce your own reputation and expand your universe of possibilities.” Part of this, I’ll argue, has to do with the way networks themselves have

@sarwar 16 October 2020

biggest earnings restatement in U.S. history. In December, Enron went bankrupt, leaving twenty thousand employees jobless, many watching their life savings practically erased by the company’s fall. Investigators found that Enron had deceived investors by reporting false profits and hiding debts of more than $1 billion, manipulated energy and power markets in California and Texas, and won international contracts by giving illegal bribes to foreign governments. Lay was convicted on six counts of conspiracy and fraud. We can debate about how much Lay truly knew about Enron’s illegal activities, but it’s difficult to deny that he was a taker. Although Lay may have looked like a giver to many observers, he was a faker: a taker in disguise. Lay felt entitled to use Enron’s resources for personal gain. As Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind describe in The Smartest Guys in the Room, Lay took exorbitant loans from the company and had his staff put his sandwiches on silver platters and fine china. A secretary once tried to reserve an Enron plane for an executive to do business, only to learn that the Lay family was currently using three Enron planes for personal travel. From 1997 to 1998, $4.5 million in Enron commissions went to a travel agency owned by Lay’s sister. According to accusations, he sold more than $70 million in stock just before Enron went bankrupt, taking the treasure from a sinking ship. This behavior was foreshadowed in the 1970s when Lay worked at Exxon. A boss wrote a reference recommending Lay highly, but warned that he was “Maybe too ambitious.” Observers now believe that as early as 1987, at Enron Oil, Lay approved and helped to conceal the activities of two traders who set up fake companies and stole $3.8 million while allowing Enron to avoid massive trading losses. When the losses were discovered, Enron Oil had to report an $85 million hit, and Lay denied knowledge and responsibility: “If anyone could say that I knew, let them stand up.” According to McLean and Elkind, one trader started to stand up but was physically restrained by two colleagues. How did a taker end up becoming so successful? He knew somebody. In fact, he knew a whole lot of somebodies. Ken Lay profited greatly from claiming his company’s financial resources as his own, but much of his success in growing that company came the old-fashioned way: he built a network of influential contacts and leveraged them for his own benefit. Lay was a master networker from the start. In college, he impressed an economics professor named Pinkney Walker and started his ascent on the shoulders of Walker’s connections. Walker helped Lay land an assignment as an economist at the Pentagon, and then a position as a chief assistant in the White House in the Nixon administration. By the mid-1980s, Lay became the head of Enron after engineering the company’s move to Houston following a merger. As he consolidated his power, he began to hobnob with political power brokers who could support Enron’s interests. He put Pinkney Walker’s brother Charls on Enron’s board and developed a relationship with George H. W. Bush, who was running for president. In 1990, Lay cochaired an important Summit of Industrialized Nations meeting for Bush in Houston, putting on a dazzling show and charming the crowd, which included British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, German chancellor Helmut Kohl, and French president François Mitterrand. After Bush lost his reelection bid to Bill Clinton, Lay wasted no time in reaching out to a friend who was a key aide to the president-elect—the friend had gone to kindergarten with Clinton. Soon, Lay was playing golf with the new president. Several years later, as George W. Bush gained power, Lay used his connections to lobby for energy deregulation and get his supporters in important government positions in Texas and the White House, influencing policies in Enron’s favor. At nearly every stage in his career, Lay was able to dramatically improve his company’s prospects—or his own—by making use of well-placed contacts in his network.

@sarwar 16 October 2020

The Peacock and the Panda How Givers, Takers, and Matchers Build Networks Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. —Martin Luther King Jr., civil rights leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Several decades ago, a man who started his life in poverty lived the American Dream. He came from humble beginnings, growing up in Missouri farm towns without indoor plumbing. To help support his family, the young man worked long hours on farms and paper routes. He put himself through college at the University of Missouri, graduated Phi Beta Kappa, and completed a master’s degree and then a doctorate in economics. He pursued a life of public service, enlisting in the Navy and then serving in several important roles in the U.S. government, earning the Navy Commendation Medal and National Defense Service Medal. From there, he built his own company, where he was chairman and CEO for fifteen years. By the time he stepped down, his company was worth $110 billion, with more than twenty thousand employees in forty countries around the world. For five consecutive years, Fortune named his company “America’s Most Innovative Company” and one of the twenty-five best places to work in the country. When asked about his success, he acknowledged the importance of “Respect . . . the golden rule . . . Absolute integrity . . . Everyone knows that I personally have a very strict code of personal conduct that I live by.” He set up a charitable family foundation, giving over $2.5 million to more than 250 organizations, and donated 1 percent of his company’s annual profits to charity. His giving attracted the attention of former president George W. Bush, who commended him as a “good guy” and a “generous person.” Then he was indicted. His name was Kenneth Lay, and he is best remembered as a primary villain in the Enron scandal. Enron was an energy, commodities, and securities firm headquartered in Houston. In October 2001, Enron lost $1.2 billion in shareholder equity after reporting third-quarter losses of $618 million,

@sarwar 16 October 2020

एक लड़की को सड़क पर खड़े होकर नारे क्यों देना चाहिए? लड़की को सड़क पर क्यों खड़ा होना चाहिए और नारे का जाप करना चाहिए? क्या लड़की के माता-पिता नहीं हैं? उसने परिवार से क्या सीखा है? लड़की को देखकर लगता है कि फायदा वादी को हुआ! निश्चित रूप से एक साजिश! जिस तरह से नारा लग रहा है जैसे कोई डीजे मंच पर गा रहा है! लेकिन हम महिलाओं का सम्मान करते हैं! लेकिन एक लड़की को इस तरह के नारे देना सही नहीं है। आपने एक लड़की की ड्रेस देखी है! आधुनिक सभ्यता के इस युग में लोगों की मानसिकता कितनी आधुनिक है। आपने सही कहा है कि आपकी बहन को सड़कों पर अपनी माँ को नारे क्यों देने चाहिए। आप एक स्वस्थ और स्वस्थ मानसिकता के आदर्श नागरिक हैं। आपके परिवार ने आपको यह सिखाया है। लेकिन आप आलोचना करते हुए घर के दरवाजे पर चुपचाप क्यों बैठते हैं। लड़की महिला की स्वतंत्रता चाहती है। उसे लाभ है या नहीं। जो कानून पारित किया गया है वह आपके और मेरी मां, बहन और बेटी के लाभ से कम नहीं है। लड़की की पोशाक असभ्य है। इस तरह का सवाल सिर्फ हास्यास्पद है जब दुनिया आधुनिक सभ्यता पर गर्व करती है। मैं एक वेश्या हूं। मैं अपनी बेटी को यह नारा क्यों दूं कि आपकी बेटी वेश्या नहीं होनी चाहिए? मेरी बंगाली माँ की छाती पर उनकी बेटी के साथ बलात्कार क्यों किया जाएगा जब आप चुप होते हैं, तो एक पतला लड़की सड़कों पर जा सकती है और जप कर सकती है ------ "छाती में बहुत सारे तूफान। मुझे छाती मिल रही है, गोली मारो। ” मुझे यहां कुछ भी गलत नहीं दिखता। सौभाग्य से आपने यह नहीं कहा - मुजीब का पाकिस्तान से इस तरह से लड़ना सही नहीं था। हमारे पूर्वजों को आजादी दिलाना सही नहीं था !!!!?? आपको सलाम बहन जी आपका सम्मान करते हैं तस्वीर में: -आसमनी आशा

@sarwar 15 October 2020

first section unveils the principles of giver success, illuminating how and why givers rise to the top. I’ll show you how successful givers have unique approaches to interactions in four key domains: networking, collaborating, evaluating, and influencing. A close look at networking highlights fresh approaches for developing connections with new contacts and strengthening ties with old contacts. Examining collaboration reveals what it takes to work productively with colleagues and earn their respect. Exploring how we evaluate others offers counterintuitive techniques for judging and developing talent to get the best results out of others. And an analysis of influence sheds light on novel strategies for presenting, selling, persuading, and negotiating, all in the spirit of convincing others to support our ideas and interests. Across these four domains, you’ll see what successful givers do differently—and what takers and matchers can learn from their approach. Along the way, you’ll find out how America’s best networker developed his connections, why the genius behind one of the most successful shows in television history toiled for years in anonymity, how a basketball executive responsible for some of the worst draft busts in history turned things around, whether a lawyer who stumbles on his words can beat a lawyer who speaks with confidence, and how you can spot a taker just from looking at a Facebook profile. In the second part of the book, the focus shifts from the benefits of giving to the costs, and how they can be managed. I’ll examine how givers protect themselves against burnout and avoid becoming pushovers and doormats. You’ll discover how a teacher reduced her burnout by giving more rather than less, how a billionaire made money by giving it away, and the ideal number of hours to volunteer if you want to become happier and live longer. You’ll see why giving slowed one consultant’s path to partner but accelerated another’s, why we misjudge who’s a giver and who’s a taker, and how givers protect themselves at the bargaining table. You’ll also gain knowledge about how givers avoid the bottom of the success ladder and rise to the top by nudging other people away from taking and toward giving. You’ll learn about a ninety-minute activity that unleashes giving in remarkable ways, and you’ll figure out why people give things away for free that they could easily sell for a profit on Craigslist, why some radiologists get better but others get worse, why thinking about Superman makes people less likely to volunteer, and why people named Dennis are unusually likely to become dentists. By the time you finish reading this book, you may be reconsidering some of your fundamental assumptions about success. If you’re a self-sacrificing giver, you’ll find plenty of insights for ascending from the bottom to the top of the success ladder. If you endorse giver values but act like a matcher at work, you may be pleasantly surprised by the wealth of opportunities to express your values and find meaning in helping others without compromising your own success. Instead of aiming to succeed first and give back later, you might decide that giving first is a promising path to succeeding later. And if you currently lean toward taking, you may just be tempted to shift in the giver direction, seeking to master the skills of this growing breed of people who achieve success by contributing to others. But if you do it only to succeed, it probably won’t work.

@sarwar 15 October 2020

of entrepreneurs, and be helpful to them.” His critics were right: “Lots of venture capitalists ended up reading it. When I talked about specific companies I was excited about, getting deals became more competitive.” But that was a price that Hornik was willing to pay. “My focus was entirely on creating value for entrepreneurs,” he says, and he has maintained the blog for the past eight years. Hornik’s second unconventional move was ignited by his frustration with dull speakers at conferences. Back in college, he had teamed up with a professor to run a speakers’ bureau so he could invite interesting people to campus. The lineup included the inventor of the game Dungeons & Dragons, the world yo-yo champion, and the animator who created the Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner cartoon characters for Warner Bros. By comparison, speakers at venture capital and technology conferences weren’t measuring up. “I discovered that I stopped going in to hear the speakers, and I would spend all my time chatting with people in the lobby about what they’re working on. The real value of these events was the conversations and relationships that were created between people. What if a conference was about conversations and relationships, not content?” In 2007, Hornik planned his first annual conference. It was called The Lobby, and the goal was to bring entrepreneurs together to share ideas about new media. Hornik was putting about $400,000 on the line, and people tried to talk him out of it. “You could destroy your firm’s reputation,” they warned, hinting that if the conference failed, Hornik’s own career might be ruined. But he pressed forward, and when it was time to send out invitations, Hornik did the unthinkable. He invited venture capitalists at rival firms to attend the conference. Several colleagues thought he was out of his mind. “Why in the world would you let other venture capitalists come to the conference?” they asked. If Hornik met an entrepreneur with a hot new idea at The Lobby, he would have a leg up on landing the investment. Why would he want to give away his advantage and help his competitors find opportunities? Once again, Hornik ignored the naysayers. “I want to create an experience to benefit everyone, not just me.” One of the rival venture capitalists who attended liked the format so much that he created his own Lobby-style conference, but he didn’t invite Hornik—or any other venture capitalists. His partners wouldn’t let him. Nevertheless, Hornik kept inviting venture capitalists to The Lobby. David Hornik recognizes the costs of operating like a giver. “Some people think I’m delusional. They believe the way you achieve is by being a taker,” he says. If he were more of a taker, he probably wouldn’t accept unsolicited pitches, respond personally to e-mails, share information with competitors on his blog, or invite his rivals to benefit from The Lobby conference. He would protect his time, guard his knowledge, and leverage his connections more carefully. And if he were more of a matcher, he would have asked for quid pro quo with the venture capitalist who attended The Lobby but didn’t invite Hornik to his own conference. But Hornik pays more attention to what other people need than to what he gets from them. Hornik has been extremely successful as a venture capitalist while living by his values, and he’s widely respected for his generosity. “It’s a win-win,” Hornik reflects. “I get to create an environment where other people can get deals and build relationships, and I live in the world I want to live in.” His experience reinforces that giving not only is professionally risky; it can also be professionally rewarding. — Understanding what makes giving both powerful and dangerous is the focus of Give and Take. The

@sarwar 15 October 2020

Corona deaths in the world have exceeded 10 lakh 90 thousand Around the world, 5,007 people have died of coronavirus in the last 24 hours. According to WorldOmiter, 3 lakh 13 thousand 26 people have been infected in the same period. In all, 10 lakh 90 thousand 225 people have died all over the world. And 3 crore 63 lakh 46 thousand 128 people have been affected. However, 2 crore 8 lakh 41 thousand 229 people have recovered. The United States has the highest number of coronavirus deaths in the world in the last 24 hours. 643 new deaths have been reported in the country. In all, 2 lakh 20 thousand 83 people have died in the country. And more than 51 thousand people have been newly infected. As a result, the number of victims has exceeded 80 lakh 90 thousand. India has the second highest number of deaths in a single day in the world. There, a new 623 people died in Corona. During this time more than 63 thousand people have been affected. In all, 1 lakh 10 thousand 618 people have died in the country. And more than 72 lakh 37 thousand people have been affected. The third highest death toll in the last 24 hours is in Argentina. At least 36 people have been killed in neighboring Brazil. And more than 13 thousand people have been affected. In all, 24,582 people have died in the South American country. And more than 9 lakh 17 thousand people have been affected. Brazil, the world's second-deadliest country, has lost 354 people. And more than 11 thousand people have been affected. In all, 1 lakh 51 thousand 83 people have died in the South American country. And more than 51 lakh 14 thousand people have been affected.

@sarwar 15 October 2020

فضل تلاوة القرآن الكريم القرآن هو أسلوب حياة البشر ، وقد أنزل الله هذا الكتاب السماوي ليرشد البشرية إلى الصراط المستقيم ، وأفضل سبيل للقرب إلى الله تلاوة الحكيم في القرآن. رواه حضرة عبد الله بن مسعودي رضي الله عنه قال: حكيم في هذا القرآن نعمة مطلقة من الله على الإنسان ، خذ نصيبك من نعمة الله هذه قدر المستطاع. العلاقة بالله في الحكيم يمكن أن يتم التأسيس ومن خلال هذه الأحجار يمكن تقديس قلوب الناس وعقولهم وأفكارهم. ويمكن للناس أن يشفيوا روحيا به. وكان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يعلّم الصحابة القرآن جيداً ويحدد رتبهم بحفظ القرآن. يكون. وقد نصح النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حضرة أبو جرار رضي الله عنه بضرورة دراسة القرآن وتلاوته وتلاوته. في رواية حضرة عائشة (رضي الله عنه) قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إن من يقرأ القرآن بصوت رخيم نقي يكون مع ملائكة الله في الآخرة. إذا كان من الصعب على الإنسان أن يقرأ الحكيم في القرآن بسبب كآبة الفم ، ولكنه لا يزال منشغلاً بتلاوة القرآن وتقطيعه ، فله أجر مضاعف. (رواه البخاري ، مسلم). في رواية أبي هريرة ، عندما أرسل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم جماعة من الناس إلى مكان ما ، قال: "اسمعوا لي بقدر ما حفظتم القرآن" كل منهم استمع إلى أجزائه المحفوظة. كان هناك شاب جدا في الفريق. سأله النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: "أتحفظون سورة البقرة؟" فقال الشاب: نعم حفظتها ، ثم قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: انطلق أنت قائد هذه الجماعة. كان أجدادنا على دراية بفضائل كريم في القرآن وفوائد قراءته وبركاته ، لذلك كتبوا قوانينهم الاجتماعية وقوانين الدولة على أساس القرآن وأخذوا أحكامًا من القرآن مباشرة. وتجد قلوبهم السلام في تلاوة القرآن. وفقنا الله جميعاً التوفيق بتلاوة القرآن.

@sarwar 15 October 2020

اليوم هو الخميس 15 أكتوبر 2020  عنوان تجري في إيدجاره حفلة صباحية ومسائية للاحتجاج على مقتل الفنانين جوني وكالو أول حكم بالإعدام في قضية اغتصاب لماذا لا يحصل الأولاد ذوو الطبيعة الطيبة على صديقات توزيع مواد صحية في بندربان بمبادرة من اتحاد سامباديك تولى سلمان خان مسؤولية علاج الممثل فرج خان الصفحة الرئيسية أول حكم بالإعدام في قضية اغتصاب أول حكم بالإعدام في قضية اغتصاب شيتاغونغ News.com. | 01:24 م، 2020-10-15         شهدت منطقة تانجيل العديد من تواريخ بنغلاديش وكتبت اسمها في تاريخ آخر. حكمت محكمة إساءة معاملة النساء والأطفال في تانجيل يوم الخميس على خمسة أشخاص بالإعدام في أول قضية اغتصاب على الإطلاق في البلاد بعد تمرير قانون عقوبة الإعدام في قضية اغتصاب. حكمت محكمة قمع إساءة معاملة النساء والأطفال يوم الخميس على خمسة أشخاص بالإعدام في قضية اغتصاب جماعي لاختطاف طالب مدرسة في قرية شابيشا في بونابور في تانجيل. وأعلنت قاضية المحكمة خالدة ياسمين الحكم. كان اثنان من المتهمين حاضرين في المحكمة عند إعلان الحكم. هما سانجيت ، 26 عامًا ، ابن بادان شاندرا ماني ريشي من قرية شارالجاني في مادوبور أوبازيلا وجوبي شاندرا شيل ، 30 عامًا ، ابن شري ديجن شاندرا شيل من قرية جولاباري في نفس أوبازيلا. الهاربون هم ساجار شاندرا شيل ، 33 عامًا ، ابن سونيل شاندرا شيل من نفس المنطقة ، سوجان ماني ريشي ، 26 عامًا ، ابن سونيل ماني ريشي وراجان شاندرا ، 28 عامًا ، ابن مانيندرا تشاندرا. تم التعامل مع القضية نيابة عن الدولة من قبل PP Nasimul Akhter الخاص بمحكمة قمع إساءة معاملة النساء والأطفال. بدأ المحامي أتور رحمن آزاد ، الأمين العام لفرع منطقة تانجيل التابع لوكالة تنفيذ حقوق الإنسان ، القضية وقدم المساعدة القانونية للضحية. قال نسيمول أختر ، النائب الخاص لمحكمة قمع إساءة معاملة النساء والأطفال ، إن طالب المدرسة من قرية شابيشا في بهونابور أوبازيلا تعرف على ساجار شاندرا شيل على هاتفه المحمول بين المدانين في عام 2012. في صباح يوم 15 يناير من نفس العام ، كانت الفتاة في طريقها إلى المدرسة من المنزل عندما وصلت إلى جسر شالداي وتم نقلها إلى إلينجا في CNG عن طريق التكتيكات البحرية. من هناك توجه إلى منزل صديقه راجان في قرية Charal Jani في Madhupur. هناك ، ضغط أربعة من أصدقائه على الطالب للزواج. رفضت الفتاة عرضه قائلة إن ساجار هندوسي. لهذا السبب ، تم اعتقال ساجار في منزل راجان في تلك الليلة وتعرض للاغتصاب. لاحقًا ، في ليلة 18 يناير / كانون الثاني ، أخذوها إلى ضفاف نهر بانغشاي ، حيث اغتصبوها بالتناوب. في صباح اليوم التالي ، بمساعدة السكان المحليين ، أنقذ أقارب الفتاة الفتاة. رفع الطالب قضية ضد المدانين في مركز شرطة بهونابور في 18 يناير. في وقت لاحق ، اعتقلت الشرطة سوجان ماني ريشي وأرسلته إلى المحكمة. في 19 يناير ، أدلى المتهم سوجان بإفادة اعتراف. اعترفت سوجان في بيانها بتورط ساجار وراجان وسانجيت وغابي شاندرا. ووجهت الشرطة اتهامات ضد الخمسة في نهاية التحقيق. بدأت الإجراءات القضائية في 29 أكتوبر 2015 بتشكيل التهم ضد المتهمين. وحكمت المحكمة على خمسة أشخاص بالإعدام في قضية اليوم. أخبار ذات صلة  قضية المفوضية الأوروبية ضد نيكسون شودري شيتاغونغ News.com. : قضية مرفوعة ضد مجبور الرحمن شودري نيكسون النائب فريدبور -4 لانتهاكه مدونة السلوك ... المزيد  يجب محاكمة المسؤولين عن وفاة ريحان: وزير الداخلية شيتاغونغ News.com. : المسئولون عن مقتل ريحان الدين (35) في تعذيب الشرطة في بندر بازار بسيلهيت ... التفاصيل  حتى لو حصلت على درجة كبيرة ، فهذا لا يعمل في الواقع: وزير التربية والتعليم شيتاغونغ News.com. : الكتب المدرسية ليس لها علاقة بواقعنا. نتيجة لذلك ، حتى لو حصلت على درجة كبيرة ، فهي تعمل في الواقع ... التفاصيل  توفي 16 شخصًا خلال 24 ساعة في البلاد ، وأصيب 184 ممثل خاص. : مات 18 شخصًا آخر في البلاد خلال 24 ساعة. وبذلك ، بلغ عدد الوفيات في البلاد 5000 ... أكثر  لا يمكن بيع البطاطس بأكثر من 30 روبية لكل كيلوغرام شيتاغونغ News.com. : يبيع التجار عديمي الضمير البطاطس بسعر يتراوح بين 15 و 20 روبية للكيلوغرام بسعر 50 إلى 55 روبية. حتى الآن ... التفاصيل  كورونا اضر بوزير التخطيط ونقل الى المستشفى شيتاغونغ News.com. : أصيب وزير التخطيط م. م. منان بفيروس كورونا الوبائي. مع الأخذ بعين الاعتبار سن الطبيب ... المزيد الأخبار الأكثر قراءة  النائب ديدار محجوب في منزل المستشار جاسم مراسل الموظفين. : شركة مدينة شيتاغونغ (تشاسيك) منزل مرشح المتمردين المرشح زاهر علم جاسم ... التفاصيل  تشاسيك ثلاثة مرشحين لرئاسة البلدية في إفادة خطية ثروتهم! شهريار منير جيسان ، مراسل موظفين. : رشحت رابطة عوامي المرشح لرئاسة البلدية رضا الكريم في انتخابات شركة مدينة شيتاغونغ (CHC) ... المزيد كل فئة الأخبار سياسة الوطني أخبار شيتاغونغ اخبار محلية أخبار Upazila وسائل الترفيه التجارة سياحة وسفر حصرية تقنية دولي رياضات الصحة التعليم افتتاحية كل بنغلاديش أسلوب الحياة أدب الأطفال والفن مقابلة الأخبار الزراعية الآخرين  مكتب التحرير مكتب شيتاغونغ: CDA B / A ، Bangabandhu Bhaban (الطابق الثالث) ، Cheragi Hill ، Momin Road ، Chittagong. الجوال: 01919617 الهاتف: + 031-2650511 البريد الإلكتروني: info@chattogramnews.com للأخبار: news@chattogramnews.com الاتصالات مكتب شيتاغونغ: CDA B / A ، Bangabandhu Bhaban (الطابق الثالث) ، Cheragi Hill ، Momin Road ، Chittagong. الجوال: 01919617 الهاتف: + 031-2650511 البريد الإلكتروني: info@chattogramnews.com للأخبار: news@chattogramnews.com © جميع الحقوق محفوظة 2019 - © 2020 Chattogram News | يعد استخدام أي نص أو صور أو مقاطع فيديو على هذا الموقع دون إذن غير قانوني تمامًا وجريمة يعاقب عليها القانون تم تطويره بواسطة Muktodhara Technology Limited

@sarwar 15 October 2020

most.” To enrich her business acumen, Sherryann left her job for six weeks, enrolling in a leadership program with sixty executives from companies around the world. To identify her strengths, she underwent a comprehensive psychological assessment. Sherryann was shocked to learn that her top professional strengths were kindness and compassion. Fearing that the results would jeopardize her reputation as a tough and successful leader, Sherryann decided not to tell anyone. “I didn’t want to sound like a flake. I was afraid people would perceive me differently, perhaps as a less serious executive,” Sherryann confided. “I was conditioned to leave my human feelings at the door, and win. I want my primary skills to be seen as hardworking and results-oriented, not kindness and compassion. In business, sometimes you have to wear different masks.” The fear of being judged as weak or naïve prevents many people from operating like givers at work. Many people who hold giver values in life choose matching as their primary reciprocity style at work, seeking an even balance of give and take. In one study, people completed a survey about whether their default approach to work relationships was to give, take, or match. Only 8 percent described themselves as givers; the other 92 percent were not willing to contribute more than they received at work. In another study, I found that in the office, more than three times as many people prefer to be matchers than givers. People who prefer to give or match often feel pressured to lean in the taker direction when they perceive a workplace as zero-sum. Whether it’s a company with forced ranking systems, a group of firms vying to win the same clients, or a school with required grading curves and more demand than supply for desirable jobs, it’s only natural to assume that peers will lean more toward taking than giving. “When they anticipate self-interested behavior from others,” explains the Stanford psychologist Dale Miller, people fear that they’ll be exploited if they operate like givers, so they conclude that “pursuing a competitive orientation is the rational and appropriate thing to do.” There’s even evidence that just putting on a business suit and analyzing a Harvard Business School case is enough to significantly reduce the attention that people pay to relationships and the interests of others. The fear of exploitation by takers is so pervasive, writes the Cornell economist Robert Frank, that “by encouraging us to expect the worst in others it brings out the worst in us: dreading the role of the chump, we are often loath to heed our nobler instincts.” Giving is especially risky when dealing with takers, and David Hornik believes that many of the world’s most successful venture capitalists operate like takers—they insist on disproportionately large shares of entrepreneurs’start-ups and claim undue credit when their investments prove successful. Hornik is determined to change these norms. When a financial planner asked him what he wanted to achieve in life, Hornik said that “above all, I want to demonstrate that success doesn’t have to come at someone else’s expense.” In an attempt to prove it, Hornik has broken two of the most sacred rules in the venture business. In 2004, he became the first venture capitalist to start a blog. Venture capital was a black box, so Hornik invited entrepreneurs inside. He began to share information openly online, helping entrepreneurs to improve their pitches by gaining a deeper understanding of how venture capitalists think. Hornik’s partners, and his firm’s general counsel, discouraged him from doing it. Why would he want to give away trade secrets? If other investors read his blog, they could steal ideas without sharing any in return. “The idea of a venture capitalist talking about what he was doing was considered insane,” Hornik reflects. “But I really wanted to engage in a conversation with a broad set

@sarwar 15 October 2020

Although technological and organizational changes have made giving more advantageous, there’s one feature of giving that’s more timeless: when we reflect on our guiding principles in life, many of us are intuitively drawn to giving. Over the past three decades, the esteemed psychologist Shalom Schwartz has studied the values and guiding principles that matter to people in different cultures around the world. One of his studies surveyed reasonably representative samples of thousands of adults in Australia, Chile, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Malaysia, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and the United States. He translated his survey into a dozen languages, and asked respondents to rate the importance of different values. Here are a few examples: List 1 Wealth (money, material possessions) Power (dominance, control over others) Pleasure (enjoying life) Winning (doing better than others) List 2 Helpfulness (working for the well-being of others) Responsibility (being dependable) Social justice (caring for the disadvantaged) Compassion (responding to the needs of others) Takers favor the values in List 1, whereas givers prioritize the values in List 2. Schwartz wanted to know where most people would endorse giver values. Take a look back at the twelve countries above. Where do the majority of people endorse giver values above taker values? All of them. In all twelve countries, most people rate giving as their single most important value. They report caring more about giving than about power, achievement, excitement, freedom, tradition, conformity, security, and pleasure. In fact, this was true in more than seventy different countries around the world. Giver values are the number-one guiding principle in life to most people in most countries—from Argentina to Armenia, Belgium to Brazil, and Slovakia to Singapore. In the majority of the world’s cultures, including that of the United States, the majority of people endorse giving as their single most important guiding principle. On some level, this comes as no surprise. As parents, we read our children books like The Giving Tree and emphasize the importance of sharing and caring. But we tend to compartmentalize giving, reserving a different set of values for the sphere of work. We may love Shel Silverstein for our kids, but the popularity of books like Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power—not to mention the fascination of many business gurus with Sun Tzu’s The Art of War—suggests that we don’t see much room for giver values in our professional lives. As a result, even people who operate like givers at work are often afraid to admit it. In the summer of 2011, I met a woman named Sherryann Plesse, an executive at a prestigious financial services firm. Sherryann was clearly a giver: she spent countless hours mentoring junior colleagues and volunteered to head up a women’s leadership initiative and a major charitable fund-raising initiative at her firm. “My default is to give,” she says. “I’m not looking for quid pro quo; I’m looking to make a difference and have an impact, and I focus on the people who can benefit from my help the

@sarwar 15 October 2020

executive offered help to three colleagues. Peter offered help to all fifteen of them. He is such a giver that he even tries to help the job applicants he doesn’t hire, spending hours making connections for them to find other opportunities. In 2011, when Peter was working as a financial adviser, he received a call from an Australian client. The client wanted to make changes to a small superannuation fund valued at $70,000. A staff member was assigned to the client, but looked him up and saw that he was a scrap metal worker. Thinking like a matcher, the staff member declined to make the visit: it was a waste of his time. It certainly wasn’t worth Peter’s time. He specialized in high net worth clients, whose funds were worth a thousand times more money, and his largest client had more than $100 million. If you calculated the dollar value of Peter’s time, the scrap metal worker’s fund was not even worth the amount of time it would take to drive out to his house. “He was the tiniest client, and no one wanted to see him; it was beneath everybody,” Peter reflects. “But you can’t just ignore someone because you don’t think they’re important enough.” Peter scheduled an appointment to drive out to see the scrap metal worker and help him with the plan changes. When he pulled up to the house, his jaw dropped. The front door was covered in cobwebs and had not been opened in months. He drove around to the back, where a thirty-four-year- old man opened the door. The living room was full of bugs, and he could see straight through to the roof: the entire ceiling had been ripped out. The client made a feeble gesture to some folding chairs, and Peter began working through the client’s plan changes. Feeling sympathy for the client, who seemed like an earnest, hardworking blue-collar man, Peter made a generous offer. “While I’m here, why don’t you tell me a bit about yourself and I’ll see if there’s anything else I can help you with.” The client mentioned a love of cars, and walked him around back to a dingy shed. Peter braced himself for another depressing display of poverty, envisioning a pile of rusted metal. When Peter stepped inside the shed, he gasped. Spread out before him in immaculate condition were a first- generation Chevy Camaro, built in 1966; two vintage Australian Valiant cars with 1,000-horsepower engines for drag racing; a souped-up coupe utility car; and a Ford coupe from the movie Mad Max. The client was not a scrap metal worker; he owned a lucrative scrap metal business. He had just bought the house to fix it up; it was on eleven acres, and it cost $1.4 million. Peter spent the next year reengineering the client’s business, improving his tax position, and helping him renovate the house. “All I did was start out by doing a kindness,” Peter notes. “When I got to work the next day, I had to laugh at my colleague who wasn’t prepared to give a bit by driving out to visit the client.” Peter went on to develop a strong relationship with the client, whose fees multiplied by a factor of a hundred the following year, and expects to continue working with him for decades. Over the course of his career, giving has enabled Peter Audet to access opportunities that takers and matchers routinely miss, but it has also cost him dearly. As you’ll see in chapter 7, he was exploited by two takers who nearly put him out of business. Yet Peter managed to climb from the bottom to the top of the success ladder, becoming one of the more productive financial advisers in Australia. The key, he believes, was learning to harness the benefits of giving while minimizing the costs. As a managing director at Genesys Wealth Advisers, he managed to rescue his firm from the brink of bankruptcy and turn it into an industry leader, and he chalks his success up to being a giver. “There’s no doubt that I’ve succeeded in business because I give to other people. It’s my weapon of choice,” Peter says. “When I’m head-to-head with another adviser to try and win business, people tell me this is why I win.”

@sarwar 15 October 2020

As the service sector continues to expand, more and more people are placing a premium on providers who have established relationships and reputations as givers. Whether your reciprocity style is primarily giver, taker, or matcher, I’m willing to bet that you want your key service providers to be givers. You hope your doctor, lawyer, teacher, dentist, plumber, and real estate agent will focus on contributing value to you, not on claiming value from you. This is why David Hornik has an 89 percent success rate: entrepreneurs know that when he offers to invest in their companies, he has their best interests at heart. Whereas many venture capitalists don’t consider unsolicited pitches, preferring to spend their scarce time on people and ideas that have already shown promise, Hornik responds personally to e-mails from complete strangers. “I’m happy to be as helpful as I can independent of whether I have some economic interest,” he says. According to Hornik, a successful venture capitalist is “a service provider. Entrepreneurs are not here to serve venture capitalists. We are here to serve entrepreneurs.” The rise of the service economy sheds light on why givers have the worst grades and the best grades in medical school. In the study of Belgian medical students, the givers earned significantly lower grades in their first year of medical school. The givers were at a disadvantage—and the negative correlation between giver scores and grades was stronger than the effect of smoking on the odds of getting lung cancer. But that was the only year of medical school in which the givers underperformed. By their second year, the givers had made up the gap: they were now slightly outperforming their peers. By the sixth year, the givers earned substantially higher grades than their peers. A giver style, measured six years earlier, was a better predictor of medical school grades than the effect of smoking on lung cancer rates (and the effect of using nicotine patches on quitting smoking). By the seventh year of medical school, when the givers became doctors, they had climbed still further ahead. The effect of giving on final medical school performance was stronger than the smoking effects above; it was even greater than the effect of drinking alcohol on aggressive behavior. Why did the giver disadvantage reverse, becoming such a strong advantage? Nothing about the givers changed, but their program did. As students progress through medical school, they move from independent classes into clinical rotations, internships, and patient care. The further they advance, the more their success depends on teamwork and service. As the structure of class work shifts, the givers benefit from their natural tendencies to collaborate effectively with other medical professionals and express concern to patients. This giver advantage in service roles is hardly limited to medicine. Steve Jones, the award- winning former CEO of one of the largest banks in Australia, wanted to know what made financial advisers successful. His team studied key factors such as financial expertise and effort. But “the single most influential factor,” Jones told me, “was whether a financial adviser had the client’s best interests at heart, above the company’s and even his own. It was one of my three top priorities to get that value instilled, and demonstrate that it’s in everybody’s best interests to treat clients that way.” One financial adviser who exemplifies this giver style is Peter Audet, a broad-shouldered Aussie who once wore a mullet and has an affinity for Bon Jovi. He began his career as a customer service representative answering phones for a large insurance company. The first year after he was hired, Peter won the Personality of the Year award, beating out hundreds of other employees based on his passion for helping customers, and became the youngest department supervisor in the whole company. Years later, when Peter joined a group of fifteen executives for a give-and-take exercise, the average

@sarwar 15 October 2020

Assalamualaikum, Good morning, How are you Friends,

@sarwar 15 October 2020

we generally associate with decency and morality—kindness, sensitivity, compassion, honesty, and empathy—can also be impressive political resources.” If politics can be fertile ground for givers, it’s possible that givers can succeed in any job. Whether giving is effective, though, depends on the particular kind of exchange in which it’s employed. This is one important feature of giving to keep in mind as we move through the ideas in this book: on any particular morning, giving may well be incompatible with success. In purely zero- sum situations and win-lose interactions, giving rarely pays off. This is a lesson that Abraham Lincoln learned each time he chose to give to others at his own expense. “If I have one vice,” Lincoln said, “and I can call it nothing else—it is not to be able to say no!” But most of life isn’t zero-sum, and on balance, people who choose giving as their primary reciprocity style end up reaping rewards. For Lincoln, like David Hornik, seemingly self-sacrificing decisions ultimately worked to his advantage. When we initially concluded that Lincoln and Hornik lost, we hadn’t stretched the time horizons out far enough. It takes time for givers to build goodwill and trust, but eventually, they establish reputations and relationships that enhance their success. In fact, you’ll see that in sales and medical school, the giver advantage grows over time. In the long run, giving can be every bit as powerful as it is dangerous. As Chip Conley, the renowned entrepreneur who founded Joie de Vivre Hotels, explains, “Being a giver is not good for a 100-yard dash, but it’s valuable in a marathon.” In Lincoln’s era, the marathon took a long time to run. Without telephones, the Internet, and high- speed transportation, building relationships and reputations was a slow process. “In the old world, you could send a letter, and no one knew,” Conley says. Conley believes that in today’s connected world, where relationships and reputations are more visible, givers can accelerate their pace. “You no longer have to choose,” says Bobbi Silten, the former president of Dockers, who now runs global social and environmental responsibility for Gap Inc. “You can be a giver and be successful.” The fact that the long run is getting shorter isn’t the only force that makes giving more professionally productive today. We live in an era when massive changes in the structure of work— and the technology that shapes it—have further amplified the advantages of being a giver. Today, more than half of American and European companies regularly use teams to get work done. We rely on teams to build cars and houses, perform surgeries, fly planes, fight wars, play symphonies, produce news reports, audit companies, and provide consulting services. Teams depend on givers to share information, volunteer for unpopular tasks, and provide help. When Lincoln invited his rivals to join his cabinet, they had the chance to see firsthand how much he was willing to contribute for the sake of other people and his country. Several years before Lincoln became president, one of his rivals, Edwin Stanton, had rejected him as a cocounsel in a trial, calling him a “gawky, long-armed ape.” Yet after working with Lincoln, Stanton described him as “the most perfect ruler of men the world has ever seen.” As we organize more people into teams, givers have more opportunities to demonstrate their value, as Lincoln did. Even if you don’t work in a team, odds are that you hold a service job. Most of our grandparents worked in independent jobs producing goods. They didn’t always need to collaborate with other people, so it was fairly inefficient to be a giver. But now, a high percentage of people work in interconnected jobs providing services to others. In the 1980s, the service sector made up about half of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP). By 1995, the service sector was responsible for nearly two thirds of world GDP. Today, more than 80 percent of Americans work in service jobs.

@sarwar 14 October 2020

Please for social media users, Please for social media users, be wise to use your mobile phone, if the phone is in charge never call or use headset... Coz it contains electrical pressure that results in the nerves of our veins weakening and worrying about something that is not wanted... May we and our whole family be safe in those kind of disasters..

+2 more

@sarwar 14 October 2020

Matteson entered the race, Sampson began to doubt his own ability to garner enough support to win. He knew that Trumbull had a small but loyal following who would not give up on him. Most people in Sampson’s shoes would have lobbied Trumbull’s followers to jump ship. After all, with just 9 percent support, Trumbull was a long shot. But Sampson’s primary concern wasn’t getting elected. It was to prevent Matteson from winning. Sampson believed that Matteson was engaging in questionable practices. Some onlookers had accused Matteson of trying to bribe influential voters. At minimum, Sampson had reliable information that some of his own key supporters had been approached by Matteson. If it appeared that Sampson would not stand a chance, Matteson argued, the voters should shift their loyalties and support him. Sampson’s concerns about Matteson’s methods and motives proved prescient. A year later, when Matteson was finishing his term as governor, he redeemed old government checks that were outdated or had been previously redeemed, but were never canceled. Matteson took home several hundred thousand dollars and was indicted for fraud. In addition to harboring suspicions about Matteson, Sampson believed in Trumbull, as they had something in common when it came to the issues. For several years, Sampson had campaigned passionately for a major shift in social and economic policy. He believed it was vital to the future of his state, and in this he and Trumbull were united. So instead of trying to convert Trumbull’s loyal followers, Sampson decided to fall on his own sword. He told his floor manager, Stephen Logan, that he would withdraw from the race and ask his supporters to vote for Trumbull. Logan was incredulous: why should the man with a larger following hand over the election to an adversary with a smaller following? Logan broke down into tears, but Sampson would not yield. He withdrew and asked his supporters to vote for Trumbull. It was enough to propel Trumbull to victory, at Sampson’s expense. That was not the first time Sampson put the interests of others ahead of his own. Before he helped Trumbull win the Senate race, despite earning acclaim for his work as a lawyer, Sampson’s success was stifled by a crushing liability. He could not bring himself to defend clients if he felt they were guilty. According to a colleague, Sampson’s clients knew “they would win their case—if it was fair; if not, that it was a waste of time to take it to him.” In one case, a client was accused of theft, and Sampson approached the judge. “If you can say anything for the man, do it—I can’t. If I attempt it, the jury will see I think he is guilty, and convict him.” In another case, during a criminal trial, Sampson leaned over and said to an associate, “This man is guilty; you defend him, I can’t.” Sampson handed the case over to the associate, walking away from a sizable fee. These decisions earned him respect, but they raised questions about whether he was tenacious enough to make tough political decisions. Sampson “comes very near being a perfect man,” said one of his political rivals. “He lacks but one thing.” The rival explained that Sampson was unfit to be trusted with power, because his judgment was too easily clouded by concern for others. In politics, operating like a giver put Sampson at a disadvantage. His reluctance to put himself first cost him the Senate election, and left onlookers wondering whether he was strong enough for the unforgiving world of politics. Trumbull was a fierce debater; Sampson was a pushover. “I regret my defeat,” Sampson admitted, but he maintained that Trumbull’s election would help to advance the causes they shared. After the election, a local reporter wrote that in comparison with Sampson, Trumbull was “a man of more real talent and power.” But Sampson wasn’t ready to step aside forever. Four years after helping Lyman Trumbull win the

@sarwar 14 October 2020

seat, Sampson ran for the Senate again. He lost again. But in the weeks leading up to the vote, one of the most outspoken supporters of Sampson’s was none other than Lyman Trumbull. Sampson’s sacrifice had earned goodwill, and Trumbull was not the only adversary who became an advocate in response to Sampson’s giving. In the first Senate race, when Sampson had 47 percent of the vote and seemed to be on the brink of victory, a Chicago lawyer and politician named Norman Judd led a strong 5 percent who would not waver in their loyalty to Trumbull. During Sampson’s second Senate bid, Judd became a strong supporter. Two years later, after two failed Senate races, Sampson finally won his first election at the national level. According to one commentator, Judd never forgot Sampson’s “generous behavior” and did “more than anyone else” to secure Sampson’s nomination. In 1999, C-SPAN, the cable TV network that covers politics, polled more than a thousand knowledgeable viewers. They rated the effectiveness of Sampson and three dozen other politicians who vied for similar offices. Sampson came out at the very top of the poll, receiving the highest evaluations. Despite his losses, he was more popular than any other politician on the list. You see, Sampson’s Ghost was a pen name that the hick used in letters. His real name was Abraham Lincoln. In the 1830s, Lincoln was striving to be the DeWitt Clinton of Illinois, referencing a U.S. senator and New York governor who spearheaded the construction of the Erie Canal. When Lincoln withdrew from his first Senate race to help Lyman Trumbull win the seat, they shared a commitment to abolishing slavery. From emancipating slaves, to sacrificing his own political opportunities for the cause, to refusing to defend clients who appeared to be guilty, Lincoln consistently acted for the greater good. When experts in history, political science, and psychology rated the presidents, they identified Lincoln as a clear giver. “Even if it was inconvenient, Lincoln went out of his way to help others,” wrote two experts, demonstrating “obvious concern for the well-being of individual citizens.” It is noteworthy that Lincoln is seen as one of the least self-centered, egotistical, boastful presidents ever. In independent ratings of presidential biographies, Lincoln scored in the top three— along with Washington and Fillmore—in giving credit to others and acting in the best interests of others. In the words of a military general who worked with Lincoln, “he seemed to possess more of the elements of greatness, combined with goodness, than any other.” In the Oval Office, Lincoln was determined to put the good of the nation above his own ego. When he won the presidency in 1860, he invited the three candidates whom he defeated for the Republican nomination to become his secretary of state, secretary of the treasury, and attorney general. In Team of Rivals, the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin documents how unusual Lincoln’s cabinet was. “Every member of the administration was better known, better educated, and more experienced in public life than Lincoln. Their presence in the cabinet might have threatened to eclipse the obscure prairie lawyer.” In Lincoln’s position, a taker might have preferred to protect his ego and power by inviting “yes men” to join him. A matcher might have offered appointments to allies who had supported him. Yet Lincoln invited his bitter competitors instead. “We needed the strongest men of the party in the Cabinet,” Lincoln told an incredulous reporter. “I had no right to deprive the country of their services.” Some of these rivals despised Lincoln, and others viewed him as incompetent, but he managed to win them all over. According to Kearns Goodwin, Lincoln’s “success in dealing with the strong egos of the men in his cabinet suggests that in the hands of a truly great politician the qualities

@sarwar 14 October 2020

read cash is very necessary read cash is a very good income generating website, which people can earn income very easily, we can learn a lot from read cash, which is different from facebook, twitter, and unique websites, as income can be made, news of all countries is known, We can get a website like this and write a lot of nice writing, this website does not want to go out anymore, no matter how much read cash has given, I do not use Facebook Twitter like before, because I need more unique websites when I read read cash. No, as the days go by, more and more members of read cash are coming, I hope many like me like the read cash site very much, pray that I can be by everyone's side all the time, we are all friends, and members, everyone will be fine, God bless, assalamualaikum,

@sarwar 14 October 2020

मैटेसन ने दौड़ में प्रवेश किया, सैम्पसन ने जीतने के लिए पर्याप्त समर्थन हासिल करने की अपनी क्षमता पर संदेह करना शुरू कर दिया। वह जानता था कि ट्रंबल के पास एक छोटा लेकिन वफादार है जो उस पर हार नहीं मानेगा। ज्यादातर लोग सैम्पसन के जूतों में ट्रम्पुल के अनुयायियों को जहाज कूदने की पैरवी करनी थी। आखिरकार, सिर्फ 9 के साथ प्रतिशत समर्थन, ट्रंबल एक लंबा शॉट था। लेकिन सैम्पसन की प्राथमिक चिंता निर्वाचित नहीं हो रही थी। यह मैटेसन को जीतने से रोकना था। सैम्पसन का मानना ​​था कि मैटेसन संदिग्ध व्यवहार में उलझे हुए थे। कुछ दर्शकों के पास था मैटेसन पर प्रभावशाली मतदाताओं को रिश्वत देने की कोशिश करने का आरोप लगाया। कम से कम, सैम्पसन के पास विश्वसनीय जानकारी थी अपने ही कुछ प्रमुख समर्थकों से मैटेसन द्वारा संपर्क किया गया था। यदि यह दिखाई दिया कि सैम्पसन एक मौका नहीं मिलेगा, मैटेसन ने तर्क दिया, मतदाताओं को अपनी निष्ठाओं को स्थानांतरित करना चाहिए और उसका समर्थन करना चाहिए। मैटसन के तरीकों और इरादों के बारे में सैम्पसन की चिंताएँ सही साबित हुईं। एक साल बाद, जब मैटसन गवर्नर के रूप में अपना कार्यकाल समाप्त कर रहे थे, उन्होंने पुरानी सरकारी जाँचों को भुनाया जो पुरानी थीं या पहले छुड़ाया गया था, लेकिन कभी रद्द नहीं किया गया था। मैटेसन कई सौ घर ले गया हजार डॉलर और धोखाधड़ी के लिए प्रेरित किया गया था। मैटेसन के बारे में संदेह को दूर करने के अलावा, सैम्पसन ट्रंबल में विश्वास करते थे, जैसा कि उनके पास था आम बात है जब यह मुद्दों पर आया था। कई वर्षों के लिए, सैम्पसन ने अभियान चलाया था सामाजिक और आर्थिक नीति में एक बड़ी पारी के लिए जुनून। उनका मानना ​​था कि यह भविष्य के लिए महत्वपूर्ण था उसका राज्य, और इसमें वह और ट्रम्बल एकजुट थे। इसलिए ट्रंबल के वफादार को बदलने की कोशिश करने के बजाय अनुयायियों, सैम्पसन ने अपनी तलवार से गिरने का फैसला किया। उन्होंने अपने फ्लोर मैनेजर स्टीफन लोगन को बताया वह दौड़ से हट जाएगा और अपने समर्थकों से ट्रंबल के लिए वोट करने के लिए कहेगा। लोगन था अविवेकी: क्यों एक आदमी के साथ चुनाव के बाद एक बड़ा हाथ होना चाहिए एक विरोधी के साथ एक छोटा सा पीछा? लोगन आंसुओं में बह गया, लेकिन सैम्पसन उपज नहीं देगा। वह हट गया और अपने समर्थकों से ट्रंबल के लिए वोट करने के लिए कहा। सैमप्सन में ट्रम्बल को जीत के लिए प्रेरित करने के लिए यह पर्याप्त था खर्च। यह पहली बार नहीं था जब सैम्पसन ने दूसरों के हितों को अपने आगे रखा। इससे पहले कि वह मदद करता एक वकील, सैम्पसन की सफलता के लिए प्रशंसा अर्जित करने के बावजूद, ट्रंबल ने सीनेट की दौड़ जीती को कुचलने की जिम्मेदारी दी गई थी। अगर वह महसूस करते हैं कि वह ग्राहकों का बचाव करने के लिए खुद को नहीं ला सकते हैं दोषी। एक सहयोगी के अनुसार, सैम्पसन के ग्राहकों को पता था कि वे अपना केस जीतेंगे - अगर यह उचित था; यदि नहीं, तो यह उसे लेने के लिए समय की बर्बादी थी। ” एक मामले में, एक ग्राहक पर चोरी का आरोप लगाया गया था, और सैम्पसन ने न्यायाधीश से संपर्क किया। "यदि आप आदमी के लिए कुछ भी कह सकते हैं, तो यह करें - मैं नहीं कर सकता अगर मैं इसका प्रयास करता हूं, जूरी देखेगा कि मुझे लगता है कि वह दोषी है, और उसे दोषी ठहराएंगे। एक अन्य मामले में, एक आपराधिक परीक्षण के दौरान, सैम्पसन झुक कर एक सहयोगी से कहा, “यह आदमी दोषी है; आप उसका बचाव करते हैं, मैं नहीं कर सकता सैम्पसन को सौंप दिया सहयोगी पर मामला, एक बड़े शुल्क से दूर चलना। इन फैसलों से उन्हें सम्मान मिला, लेकिन उन्होंने इस बारे में सवाल उठाए कि क्या वह कठोर राजनीतिक निर्णय लेने के लिए पर्याप्त रूप से तैयार थे। सैम्पसन "एक आदर्श व्यक्ति होने के बहुत करीब आता है," अपने राजनीतिक प्रतिद्वंद्वियों में से एक ने कहा। “उसके पास कमी है लेकिन एक बात।" प्रतिद्वंद्वी ने समझाया कि सैम्पसन सत्ता के साथ भरोसा करने के लिए अयोग्य था, क्योंकि उसकी निर्णय बहुत आसानी से दूसरों के लिए चिंता का विषय था। राजनीति में, एक दाता की तरह काम कर रहा है एक नुकसान में सैम्पसन। खुद को पहले रखने की उनकी अनिच्छा ने उन्हें सीनेट चुनाव में खर्च किया, और छोड़ दिया दर्शकों को आश्चर्य है कि क्या वह राजनीति की अक्षम्य दुनिया के लिए पर्याप्त मजबूत थे। Trumbull एक भयंकर बहस थी; सैम्पसन एक पुशओवर था। "मुझे अपनी हार पर पछतावा है," सैम्पसन ने स्वीकार किया, लेकिन वह यह सुनिश्चित किया कि ट्रंबल का चुनाव उनके द्वारा साझा किए गए कारणों को आगे बढ़ाने में मदद करेगा। चुनाव के बाद, एक स्थानीय रिपोर्टर ने लिखा कि सैम्पसन की तुलना में, ट्रंबल "अधिक वास्तविक प्रतिभा का व्यक्ति था और शक्ति।" लेकिन सैम्पसन हमेशा के लिए अलग हटने को तैयार नहीं था। लिमन ट्रंबल को जीतने में मदद करने के चार साल बाद

@sarwar 14 October 2020

și căutați modalități de a le doborî o crestătură. În schimb, atunci când câștigă donatori precum David Hornik, oamenii îi înrădăcinează și îi susțin, mai degrabă decât să-i tragă. Dătătorii reușesc într-un mod care creează un efect de ondulare, sporind succesul oamenilor din jurul lor. Veți vedea că diferența constă în modul în care succesul oferitor creează valoare, în loc să o revendice. În calitate de capitalist de risc Randy Komisar remarcă: „Este mai ușor să câștigi dacă toată lumea vrea să câștigi. Dacă nu faci dușmani acolo, este mai ușor să reușești. " Dar, în unele arene, se pare că costurile oferirii depășesc în mod clar beneficiile. În politică, pentru de exemplu, citatul inițial al lui Mark Twain sugerează că diplomația implică luarea de zece ori mai mult decât dând. „Politica”, scrie fostul președinte Bill Clinton, „este o afacere care„ primește ”. Trebuie să obții sprijin, contribuții și voturi, iar și iar. ” Persoanele care iau decizii ar trebui să aibă un avantaj în lobby și depășind manevrele adversarilor în alegerile competitive, iar meciurile pot fi potrivite pentru tranzacționarea constantă a favorurilor pe care politica le cere. Ce se întâmplă cu donatorii din lumea politicii? Luați în considerare luptele politice ale unui hick care s-a numit Sampson. El a spus că scopul său este să să fie „Clinton din Illinois” și și-a pus în vedere câștigarea unui loc în Senat. Sampson era un candidat puțin probabil pentru funcții politice, după ce și-a petrecut primii ani lucrând la o fermă. Dar Sampson avea mare ambiție; a făcut prima sa candidatură pentru un loc în legislatura de stat când avea doar douăzeci de ani trei ani. Au fost treisprezece candidați și doar primii patru au câștigat locuri. Sampson a făcut o prezentare lipsită de lumină, terminând pe locul opt. După ce a pierdut cursa respectivă, Sampson și-a îndreptat privirea spre afaceri, luând un împrumut pentru a începe un mic magazin cu un prieten. Afacerea a eșuat, iar Sampson nu a putut să ramburseze împrumutul, așa că bunurile sale au fost confiscate de autoritățile locale. La scurt timp după aceea, partenerul său de afaceri a murit fără active și Sampson a preluat datoria. Sampson a numit în glumă răspunderea sa „datoria națională”: el datora cincisprezece ori de venitul său anual. I-ar lua ani, dar în cele din urmă a rambursat fiecare cent. După ce afacerea sa a eșuat, Sampson a făcut o a doua cursă pentru legislatura de stat. Deși era la doar douăzeci și cinci de ani, a terminat al doilea, aterizând un loc. Pentru prima sa sesiune legislativă, a avut să împrumute banii pentru a-și cumpăra primul costum. În următorii opt ani, Sampson a slujit în stat legislativ, obținând o diplomă în drept pe parcurs. În cele din urmă, la patruzeci și cinci de ani, era gata să-l urmărească influență pe scena națională. A făcut o ofertă pentru Senat. Sampson știa că duce o bătălie ascendentă. A avut doi adversari principali: James Shields și Lyman Trumbull. Ambii fuseseră judecători ai Curții Supreme de stat, provenind din medii mult mai multe privilegiat decât al lui Sampson. Shields, actualul candidat la realegere, a fost nepotul unui congresman. Trumbull a fost nepotul unui eminent istoric educat în Yale. Prin comparatie, Sampson a avut puțină experiență sau influență politică. În primul sondaj, Sampson a fost un prim-surpriză, cu 44% sprijin. Shields era aproape în urmă cu 41 la sută, iar Trumbull a fost o treime îndepărtată, cu 5 la sută. În următorul sondaj, Sampson a câștigat sol, urcând la 47% suport. Dar valul a început să se transforme când un nou candidat a intrat în rasă: actualul guvernator al statului, Joel Matteson. Matteson era popular și avea potențialul atrage voturi atât de la Sampson, cât și de la Trumbull. Când Shields s-a retras din cursă, Matteson a preluat repede conducerea. Matteson avea 44 la sută, Sampson scădea la 38 la sută, iar Trumbull era la doar 9%. Câteva ore mai târziu, Trumbull a câștigat alegerile cu 51%, restrângându-se 47 de procente ale lui Matteson. De ce a căzut Sampson și cum s-a ridicat Trumbull atât de repede? Inversarea bruscă a lor pozițiile s-au datorat unei alegeri făcute de Sampson, care părea afectat de dăruirea patologică. Cand

@sarwar 14 October 2020

at sinimulan niyang itakda ang Hornik sa iba pang mga pagkakataon sa pamumuhunan. Sa isang kaso, pagkatapos makilala ang CEO ng isang kumpanya na tinawag na Rocket Lawyer, inirekomenda ni Shader si Hornik bilang isang namumuhunan. Bagaman ang CEO mayroon nang isang term sheet mula sa isa pang namumuhunan, natapos ni Hornik na manalo sa pamumuhunan. Bagaman kinikilala niya ang mga kabiguan, naniniwala si David Hornik na ang pagpapatakbo tulad ng isang nagbibigay ay naging isang puwersang nagtutulak sa likod ng kanyang tagumpay sa venture capital. Tinantya ni Hornik na kapag karamihan sa pakikipagsapalaran ang mga kapitalista ay nag-aalok ng mga term sheet sa mga negosyante, mayroon silang isang rate ng pag-sign malapit sa 50 porsyento: "Kung makakakuha ka ng kalahati sa mga deal na inaalok mo, mahusay ang iyong ginagawa. " Gayunpaman sa labing isang taon bilang isang kapitalistang pakikipagsapalaran, Hornik ay nag-alok ng dalawampu't walong term sheet sa mga negosyante, at dalawampu't lima ang tumanggap. Ang Shader ay isa sa tatlong tao lamang na tumanggi sa isang pamumuhunan mula sa Hornik. Ang iba pang 89 na porsyento ng oras na kinuha ng mga negosyante ang pera ni Hornik. Salamat sa kanyang pagpopondo at ekspertong payo, ang mga ito ang mga negosyante ay nagpatuloy upang bumuo ng isang bilang ng mga matagumpay na pagsisimula-ang isa ay pinahahalagahan ng higit sa $ 3 bilyon sa unang araw ng pangangalakal nito noong 2012, at ang iba pa ay nakuha ng Google, Oracle, Ticketmaster, at Halimaw. Ang pagsusumikap at talento ni Hornik, hindi na banggitin ang kanyang kapalaran na nasa kanang sideline sa kanya Ang laro ng soccer ng anak na babae, ay gumanap ng malaking bahagi sa paglalagay ng linya sa deal kasama si Danny Shader. Ngunit kanya ito istilo ng katumbasan na nagtapos sa panalong araw para sa kanya. Kahit na mas mabuti pa, hindi lamang siya ang nagwagi. Nanalo rin si Shader, tulad ng mga kumpanya na inirekumenda ni Shader kay Hornik. Sa pamamagitan ng pagpapatakbo bilang a tagabigay, nilikha ni Hornik ang halaga para sa kanyang sarili habang pinapalaki ang mga pagkakataon para sa halagang dumaloy palabas ang pakinabang ng iba. *** Sa librong ito, nais kong akitin ka na minamaliit natin ang tagumpay ng mga nagbibigay tulad ni David Hornik. Bagaman madalas kaming nagbibigay ng stereotype bilang mga chumps at doormat, nakakagulat ang mga ito matagumpay Upang malaman kung bakit pinangungunahan ng mga nagbibigay ang tuktok ng tagumpay ng hagdan, susuriin namin ang nakakagulat mga pag-aaral at kwentong nagliliwanag kung paano ang pagbibigay ay maaaring maging mas malakas — at hindi gaanong mapanganib — kaysa sa karamihan naniniwala ang mga tao. Sa daan, ipakikilala kita sa mga matagumpay na tagabigay mula sa maraming iba't ibang mga kalagayan buhay, kabilang ang mga consultant, abogado, doktor, inhinyero, salespeople, manunulat, negosyante, mga accountant, guro, tagapayo sa pananalapi, at executive ng palakasan. Ang mga nagbibigay ay binabaligtad ang tanyag plano ng magtagumpay muna at ibalik sa paglaon, na nagpapataas ng posibilidad na ang mga unang magbigay ay madalas pinakamahusay na nakaposisyon para sa tagumpay sa paglaon. Ngunit hindi namin makakalimutan ang tungkol sa mga inhinyero at salespeople na iyon sa ilalim ng hagdan. Ang ilan ang mga nagbibigay ay naging mga pushover at doormat, at nais kong tuklasin kung ano ang naghihiwalay sa mga champ mula sa chumps Ang sagot ay hindi gaanong tungkol sa hilaw na talento o kakayahan, at higit pa tungkol sa mga diskarte na ginagamit ng mga nagbibigay at ang mga pagpipilian na ginagawa nila. Upang ipaliwanag kung paano maiiwasan ng mga tagabigay ang ilalim ng hagdan ng tagumpay, pupunta ako i-debunk ang dalawang karaniwang mga alamat tungkol sa mga nagbibigay sa pamamagitan ng pagpapakita sa iyo na hindi sila kinakailangang maganda, at sila ay hindi kinakailangang altruistic. Lahat tayo ay may mga layunin para sa aming sariling mga nakamit, at nangyari iyon matagumpay na nagbibigay ay bawat bit bilang mapaghangad bilang takers at matchers. Simple lang ang pagkakaroon nila ng ibang paraan ng paghabol sa kanilang mga layunin. Dinadala tayo nito sa aking pangatlong layunin, na ilahad kung ano ang kakaiba sa tagumpay ng mga nagbibigay. Hayaan mo linawin ko na ang mga tagabigay, tagakuha, at tagataya lahat ay maaaring — at gawin — makamit ang tagumpay. Ngunit mayroon isang bagay na natatanging nangyayari kapag nagtagumpay ang mga nagbibigay: kumakalat ito at mga kaskad. Kapag nanalo ang mga kumukuha, karaniwang may ibang tao na natatalo. Ipinapakita ng pananaliksik na ang mga tao ay may posibilidad na inggit sa mga matagumpay na kumukuha

@sarwar 13 October 2020

Neither. When I took another look at the data, I discovered a surprising pattern: It’s the givers again. As we’ve seen, the engineers with the lowest productivity are mostly givers. But when we look at the engineers with the highest productivity, the evidence shows that they’re givers too. The California engineers with the best objective scores for quantity and quality of results are those who consistently give more to their colleagues than they get. The worst performers and the best performers are givers; takers and matchers are more likely to land in the middle. This pattern holds up across the board. The Belgian medical students with the lowest grades have unusually high giver scores, but so do the students with the highest grades. Over the course of medical school, being a giver accounts for 11 percent higher grades. Even in sales, I found that the least productive salespeople had 25 percent higher giver scores than average performers—but so did the most productive salespeople. The top performers were givers, and they averaged 50 percent more annual revenue than the takers and matchers. Givers dominate the bottom and the top of the success ladder. Across occupations, if you examine the link between reciprocity styles and success, the givers are more likely to become champs—not only chumps. Guess which one David Hornik turns out to be? — After Danny Shader signed with the other investor, he had a gnawing feeling. “We just closed a big round. We should be celebrating. Why am I not happier? I was excited about my investor, who’s exceptionally bright and talented, but I was missing the opportunity to work with Hornik.” Shader wanted to find a way to engage Hornik, but there was a catch. To involve him, Shader and his lead investor would have to sell more of the company, diluting their ownership. Shader decided it was worth the cost to him personally. Before the financing closed, he invited Hornik to invest in his company. Hornik accepted the offer and made an investment, earning some ownership of the company. He began coming to board meetings, and Shader was impressed with Hornik’s ability to push him to consider new directions. “I got to see the other side of him,” Shader says. “It had just been overshadowed by how affable he is.” Thanks in part to Hornik’s advice, Shader’s start-up has taken off. It’s called PayNearMe, and it enables Americans who don’t have a bank account or a credit card to make online purchases with a barcode or a card, and then pay cash for them at participating establishments. Shader landed major partnerships with 7-Eleven and Greyhound to provide these services, and in the first year and a half since launching, PayNearMe has been growing at more than 30 percent per month. As an investor, Hornik has a small share in this growth. Hornik has also added Shader to his list of references, which is probably even more valuable than the deal itself. When entrepreneurs call to ask about Hornik, Shader tells them, “You may be thinking he’s just a nice guy, but he’s a lot more than that. He’s phenomenal: super-hardworking and very courageous. He can be both challenging and supportive at the same time. And he’s incredibly responsive, which is one of the best characteristics you can have in an investor. He’ll get back to you any hour—day or night—quickly, on anything that matters.” The payoff for Hornik was not limited to this single deal on PayNearMe. After seeing Hornik in action, Shader came to admire Hornik’s commitment to acting in the best interests of entrepreneurs