No matter your job, you can expand your role (Lesson in Negotiation)

Expand your role to include meaningful activities. No matter your job label, you have a choice about how to define many of the activities in your role. You can decide the extent to which you want to talk or to listen, to argue or to work together, and to treat others with disrespect or with courtesy. You are free to explore interests with the other side, to brainstorm options that meet your interests and theirs, and to ask the other person’s advice or to offer advice. You can make recommendations about how to structure an agenda. In large part, the bounds of your role are set by you.

Consider the experience of two waitresses working at the same Cambridge restaurant. They discovered that each was trying to write a novel. Both saw the job of waitress as a temporary way to make a living until their first novel was accepted by a publisher.

The first waitress found her job hard work, physically exhausting, and boring. During the afternoon break between the end of lunch and the beginning of dinner, she went back to her apartment and tried to write. But the writing didn’t go well, and she often found herself taking a nap instead.

Each morning before work, she sat down by the computer and tried to write seriously. She found it hard to make her characters plausible and to fill their lives with realistic things to do.

The second waitress also found the restaurant work hard and physically exhausting, but not boring. She considered everyone at the table she was serving as a potential character in her novel or possibly in a later one. She kept two pads in her apron pocket, one for orders and one on which, when time permitted, she jotted notes about the people she was serving. She recorded physical characteristics of her customers, bits of conversation she had overheard, and, at other times, what she imagined the people at the table might be thinking or what they might do when they left the restaurant.

She found it much easier to breathe life into the characters in her novel by observing real people rather than sitting alone at her desk. During the long break between serving lunch and dinner, she wrote up her notes and expanded upon them. When she was writing her novel during the morning before she started work, she found herself putting to good use the people, the conversations, and the ideas that had been stimulated during the previous days and weeks. As her manuscript took shape, her reputation as an attentive and popular waitress also grew. She showed a genuine interest in those she was serving, seeing each in the role of a person with a fascinating life.

Her job was “waitress.” But she expanded her job to include activities that were fulfilling to her. She gathered information about what real people looked like, how they talked, and what she imagined they thought and felt —data and ideas that she could use in her writing. She found her combined roles not only exhausting but also exhilarating.

Just as the waitress chose activities to make her role more fulfilling, you have the power to choose activities that make your role as negotiator more fulfilling. Your role can include the excitement of learning more about others, about negotiation, and about yourself.

Ref: Beyond Reason - Using Emotions as You Negotiate (Roger Fisher)

Union Budget of India 2021-2022

FM Nirmala Sitharaman began her Union Budget 2021 speech at 11 am Monday amid heckling by parliamentarians. Among big-ticket measures, FM proposed a Rs 64,180-crore Aatmanirbhar Swastha Bharat scheme in view of the pandemic. 
"Only three times has the Budget followed a contraction in the economy. This time, unlike before, the situation is due to a global pandemic. Budget 2021 provides every opportunity for the economy to capture the pace and grow sustainably," she began. 
The Budget 2021 proposals rest on six pillars —health & well-being, physical & financial capital & infrastructure, inclusive development for aspirational India, reinvigorating human capital, innovation & research & development, minimum government and maximum governance, she added. 
Benchmark stock indices Nifty and Sensex gave a thumbs up to government's 'expansionary budget' as FM Sitharaman chose the path of additional borrowing instead of taxing the super-rich or raising taxes on high-income individuals.  
The FM had earlier promised a "never before" budget not seen in a hundred years to ward off the economic devastation caused by a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic which rendered millions out of jobs, shuttered scores of small businesses and snuffed the spending power of the bottom of pyramid populace. 
FM said the government will borrow about Rs 12 lakh crore in FY22, adding that the expenditure for the next fiscal has been pegged at Rs 34.83 lakh crore, which includes Rs 5.54 lakh crore of capital expenditure. The fiscal deficit for FY21 was pegged at 9.5% of GDP and will come down to 6.8 per cent in FY22, she added. 
The FM added that the government will approach the market to borrow an additional Rs 80,000 crore to fund the FY21 fiscal deficit. Ref: Excerpt from speech

Key Takeaways Across Sectors

Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on February 1, while reading out the Budget 2021-22, she announced a slew of measures to revive the Indian economy and announced the total size of the 2021-22 budget at Rs 34.83 lakh crore.

1) Health and Well Being:

a) Total allocation: Rs 2,23,846 crore (138% increase than previous Budget).
b) PM Aatmanirbhar Swastha Bharat: Rs 64,180 crore over 6 years.
c) Urban Swachcha Bharat Mission: Rs 1,41,678 crore over 5 years.
d) Voluntary vehicle scrapping policy. Vehicles will undergo fitness tests after 20 years for PVs, 15 years for CVs.

2) Manufacturing:

a) Capital expenditure for FY 21-22: Rs 5.54 lakh crore
b) Mega Investment Textiles Parks over 3 years, in addition to PLI.
c) Bill to set-up a Development Finance Institution (DFI), capitalised with Rs 20,000 crore.
d) DFI for infrastructure financing: Bill will be passed to set up the DFI with a target lending portfolio of Rs 5 lakh crore in 3 years
e) Capital expenditure for FY 21-22: Rs 5.54 lakh crore (an increase by 34.5% YoY).
f) To launch National Monetisation Pipeline for brownfield projects, NHAI and PGCIL have sponsored one InvIT each

3) Roads Connectivity:

a) Allotment to Ministry of Road Transport & Highways: Rs 1.18 lakh crore.
b) To award 8,500-km of highways by March 2022 and 11,000-km of national highway corridor to be completed.
c) Highway works proposed:
 i) 3,500 km corridor in Tamil Nadu.
 ii) 1,100 km in Kerala at investment of Rs 65,000 crore.
 iii) 675 km in West Bengal at a cost of Rs 95,000 crore.
 iv) 1,300 km in Assam in the next 3 years.
d) 3500 km of national highway work being planned in Tamil Nadu at an estimated investment of Rs 1.3 lakh crore.
e) 1500 km of national highway work being planned in Kerala at a cost of Rs 65,000 crore.
f) Government to undertake future freight corridor development projects.
g) The govt to work towards raising the share of public transport with an outlay of Rs 18,000 crore.

4) Railways:
Total allocation: Rs 1,10,055 crore.

5) Power:

a) Scheme to assist Discoms will be launched: Outlay over Rs 3 lakh crore.
b) Ujjwala scheme to be expanded to over 1 crore more beneficiaries.
c) City gas distribution network to be expanded to 100 more districts.
d) Independent gas network operator will be set up.

6) Disinvestment:

a) Divestment target for FY22: Rs 1.75 lakh crore.
b) Proposal to strategically divest 2 PSU banks & 1 general insurance co.
c) Proposal to take up 2 PSBs and one general insurer for divestment.
d) To bring IPO of LIC in FY22.
e) Approved policy for divestment in strategic and non-strategic sectors.
f) Set up a separate administrative structure for cooperatives.
g) Approval policy for divestment in strategic and non-strategic sectors.
h) Non-core assets like surplus land will be monetised. SPVs will be set up to carry out this activity.

7) Startups/MSMEs:

a) Innovators would be allowed to form 1-person companies without restrictions, paid-up capital, or turnover norms.
b) Govts says provided Rs 15,700 crore to MSME sector, more than 2x of the previous year.
c) Proposal to reduce the margin money requirement from 25% to 15% doe Stand Up India for SCs, STs, and women, and to also include loans for activities allied to agriculture.
d) Proposal to provide Rs 1,000 crores for the welfare of Tea workers especially women and their children in Assam and West Bengal. A special scheme will be devised for the same.

8) Agriculture and Allied Services:

a) For wheat procurement in 2020-21 to farmers: Rs 75,060 crore.
b) Enhanced agriculture credit target for FY22. Additional allocations for rural infrastructure & irrigation.
c) Micro-irrigation corpus doubled to Rs 10,000 crore.
d) Agriculture infra funds will be made available to APMCs.
e) Rural infra fund increased to Rs 40,000 crore.
f) Set up multi seaweed park in Tamil Nadu.

9) Social security:

a) '1 Nation 1 Ration Card' plan under implementation by 32 states & UTs. To launch a portal to collect data on migrant workers.
b) Social security benefits will be extended to gig and platform workers.
c) To launch a portal to collect data on migrant workers.
d) Social security benefits will be extended to gig economy workers.
e) Women will be allowed to work in all areas and in night shifts.

10) Education and Skill Development:

a) Introduction of legislation for setting up of higher education commission. Will set up a central university in Leh.
b) 15,000 schools to be strengthened as per National Education Policy 
c) 100 new Sainik schools to be set up in partnership with NGOs.
d) Raise allocation for 'Eklavya' schools to Rs 38 crore & Rs 40 crore in hilly areas.
e) For skill initiatives for the youth: Rs 3,000 crore to be set aside.
f) National Research Foundation to be allocated Rs 50,000 crore over 5 years.

11) Digital Payments:

a) To boost digital payments.
b) For financial incentives for digital payments: Rs 1,500 crore earmarked.
c) NRF to get Rs 50,000 crore over 5 years. NRF will focus on the Research system being strengthened in the industry.

12) Expenditure target:

a) FY21 revised expenditure target: Rs 34.50 lakh crore.
b) Govt to approach the market for additional Rs 80,000 crore to fund the FY21 fiscal deficit.
c) Fiscal deficit will reach below 4.5% by FY26.
d) Gross market borrowing target at Rs 12 lakh crore for FY22.
e) 41% devolution to states retained.
f) Contingency Fund of India to be enhanced: Rs 30,000 cr.
g) Propose to discontinue loans to FCI. Have provided support in budget.
h) 15th Finance Commission reconfirming share of States at 41%.
i) Fiscal deficit in the revised estimate for FY21 pegged at 9.5% of GDP
j) Need another Rs 80,000 crore for FY21.
k) Will approach market in next the 2 months for the additional Rs 80,000 crore.
l) Fiscal Deficit Estimated at 6.8% for FY22.
m) Gross Borrowing Estimated at around Rs 12 lakh crore for FY22
n) Will look to bring the fiscal deficit below 4.5% by 2025-2026 (FY26).
o) Expect a fairly decent decline of Fiscal Deficit up to FY26.

13) Income Tax:

a) Senior citizens above 75 years with only pension and interest income exempted from filing returns.
b) Reopening of tax cases only till after 3 years Vs 6 years earlier.
c) To set-up a faceless dispute resolution mechanism for small taxpayers.
d) To make Income Tax Appellate Tribunal faceless.
e) Proposal to Propose to increase the threshold for tax audit to Rs 10 crore Vs Rs 5 crore (for those transacting 95% digitally).

14) Affordable Housing:

a) Affordable housing deduction extended by one year to FY22.
b) Tax exemption to notified rental housing projects
c) Notified infra debt funds to be eligible to raise tax-efficient zero-coupon bonds.

15) Other Taxes:

a) FPI to get a deduction of tax on the dividend at a lower treaty rate.
b) Tax exemption for aircraft leasing companies. Tax holiday for Aircraft leasing business in Gift city.
c) Details of cap gains, div income, interest income to be pre-filled in tax forms.
d) Late deposit of employee’s contribution will not be allowed as a deduction for the employer.
e) Extension of cap gains tax exemption for investment into start-ups by another year.
f) Delayed contribution of EPF by an employer for the employee will not be allowed as a deduction.
g) Proposal to review more than 400 old exemptions in customs this year.
h) To put into place new customs duty structure by Oct-1, 2021.
i) Withdrawal of exemptions on some parts of mobile phones. Some parts of mobiles to move from NIL to 2.5% rate.
j) Exemption of duty on steel scrap for a specified period. Revocation of ADD and CVD on certain steel products.
k) Cut in duty on copper scrap 2.5% from 5%.
l) Cut in Basic Customs Duty rate on nylon chips & nylon fiber.
m) Rationalisation of customs duties on gold and silver.
n) Introduction of a phased manufacturing plan for solar cells & panels.
o) Withdrawal of exemption on tunnel boring machines, to be taxed at 7.5%.
p) Increase in customs duties on some auto parts.
q) Withdrawal of exemption on certain kinds of leather imports.
r) Raise in customs duty on cotton and raw silk. Ref: Key Takeaways

Industry Reviews

- Bullion industry lauds the move of the government to cut customs duty on gold and silver, which was a long-standing demand of the industry. Government has announced in the Budget 2021 to reduce import duty on precious metals to 7.5% from 12.5%. However, both will attract 2.5% of agriculture infrastructure and development cess. 

- Being the world's second-largest gold consumer, India imports the bulk of its gold and silver requirements. Since the prices of precious metals have surged sharply in 2020, physical demand plummeted and imports have tumbled to multi-year lows. The total levy on gold currently is at 15.5 per cent, including GST. With reduced duty, the cost will come down, which is a big positive in long term for the demand outlook of gold. 

- Startups, their employees and investors, including venture capital and private equity funds, had a lot of expectations from the Union Budget 2021, while some measures were announced, there was a lot left to be desired as Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman focused on healthcare and infrastructure spending in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Though there were no announcements which put the industry into a frenzy—like a proposed ban on cryptocurrencies two years ago and the angel tax issue—a lot of areas where founders and investors expected reform did not happen, while the areas the government did address seem to be incremental, writes M Sriram.

- The Budget has proposed to set the ball rolling for a long term strong growth with focus on infrastructure and banking reforms. The inclusion of off balance sheet items also signals a clear intention of the government towards a transparent accounting. Ref: moneycontrol

Budget Highlights 2021: Top 5 takeaways for taxpayers

1. No tax burden on senior citizens above 75

2. Tax assessment can be re-opened only up to 3 years

3. Dispute Resolution Committee for small taxpayers

4. Additional deduction of Rs 1.5 lakh for purchasing affordable house.

5. Relief from double taxation for NRIs

Direct Tax Proposals

Certain direct tax proposals were introduced, providing relaxation to individual taxpayers and startups to some extent. The individual and corporate tax rates for FY 2021-22 (AY 2022-23) was left unchanged. In a major move, the limit for tax audits under section 44AB has been increased from Rs 5 crore to Rs 10 crore (only where 95% of payments are digitised), providing relief to many corporate houses. The following are other proposed amendments:

# IT relaxation for senior citizens of 75 years age and above:
It has been proposed to exempt the senior citizens from filing income tax returns if pension income and interest income are their only annual income source. Section 194P has been newly inserted to enforce the banks to deduct tax on senior citizens more than 75 years of age who have a pension and interest income from the bank.

# Reduction in time for IT Proceedings:
Except in cases of serious tax evasion, assessment proceedings in the rest of the cases shall be reopened only up to three years, against the earlier time limit of six years.

# Constitution of ‘Dispute Resolution Committee’:
Those assessed with a taxable income of up to Rs.50 lakh (for small and medium taxpayers) and any disputed income of Rs.10 lakh can approach this committee under section 245MA. It will prevent new disputes and settle the issue at the initial stage.

# National Faceless Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Centre:
Provision is made for faceless proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in a jurisdiction less manner. It will reduce the cost of compliance for taxpayers, and increase transparency in the disposal of appeals. Further, it will also help achieve even distribution of work in different benches and ensure efficient administration.

# Tax incentives to startups:
The tax holiday for startups has been extended by one more year up to 31st March 2022.

# Relaxations to NRI:
There is a proposal to notify rules for removing hardship for double taxation.

# Pre-filing of returns to be forefront:
Pre-filling will be allowed for salary, tax payments, TDS, etc. Further, details of capital gains from listed securities, dividend income, etc. will be prefilled.

# Advance Tax on dividend income:
Advance tax will henceforth be applicable on dividend income only after its declaration. Tax holidays are proposed for aircraft leasing and rental companies.

# Disallowance of PF contribution:
In case the employee’s PF contribution was deducted but not deposited by the employer, it will not be allowed as a deduction for the employer.

# Section 43CA stands amended:
The stamp duty value can be up to 120% (earlier 110%) of the consideration if the transfer of “residential unit”, which means an independent housing unit is made between 12th November 2020 and 30th June 2021.

# Amendment to Section 44ADA:
Section 44ADA applied to all the assessees being residents in India. Now onwards, it applies only to the resident individual, Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or a partnership firm, other than LLP.

# Section 80EEA deduction extended:
The affordable housing additional deduction was extended till 31st March 2022. The tax exemption has been granted for affordable rental projects. Ref: ClearTax

Proposals in the area of Personal Tax Ref: Infosys Newsletter

· Section 80EEA: Deduction of INR 1.5 lac in respect of interest on loan of certain house property can be claimed for loan sanctioned till 31 March 2022 (earlier it was 31 March 2021) in old tax regime.

· Advance Tax on dividend income: Advance tax liability on dividend income will arise only after declaration or payment of dividend.

· Interest income earned from the contribution exceeding INR 2.5 lakhs to Recognized & Employee Provident Fund and Public Provident fund from April 1, 2021 will be taxable.

· ULIP: Amount received under ULIP with premium exceeding Rs.2.5lac will be treated as capital assets and taxable under capital gain on redemption (exempt in case of death). This is for the policies issued after 1st Feb 2021.

· There is no changes in the Income tax slabs & tax regimes for individual.

· Senior Citizens >75 years of age are not required to file Income tax returns if there is only pension & interest income.

Congress Leader Chidambaram slams govt

Although the government has claimed a massive increase of 137 per cent in health allocation in Budget 2021, Congress leader P. Chidambaram lashed out at the Centre saying the figure was just a "conjurer's trick." Chidambaram further said that the government had only marginally raised health funding, which when adjusted to inflation becomes nil.

"The FM gave out a mind-boggling figure of Rs 2,23,846 crore for health, a breathtaking "rise" from the BE of the current year of Rs 94,452 crore. As I had warned, it was a conjurer's trick," he said. Chidambaram stated that "she (FM Sitharaman) added the one-time cost of vaccination ((Rs 35,000 crore) and the Finance Commission grants amounting to Rs 49,214 crore. She also included the allocations to the Department of Water and Sanitation." Ref: BusinessToday

Additional Notes

A1. LIC IPO: The FM announced plans to privatise 2 PSU banks and one general insurance company in FY22. The Govt will bring the long-awaited LIC IPO in FY22, adding that it plans to complete the divestments of BPCL, CONCOR and SCI in 2021-22

A2. Minimum Wages: Minimum wages will now apply to all categories of workers and women will be allowed to work in all categories with adequate protection. Ref: EconomicTimes

A3. Two PSBs, one GIC to be divested: Two Public Sector Banks and one general insurance company to be divested, legislations amendments to be introduced in this session, says FM Sitharaman.

A4. Coming to Jammu and Kashmir, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a new gas pipeline project for the state.

A5. For Energy: Rs 1,000 crore to solar energy corporation and Rs 1,500 to renewable energy development agency were also announced. Ref: IndianExpress

Following is a list of imported items that will become costlier

* Compressors for refrigerators and air conditioners
* LED lamps, parts and spares such as printed circuit board
* Raw silk and cotton,
* Solar invertors and lanterns
* Automobile parts such as safety and toughened glasses
* Windscreen wipers
* Signalling equipment
* Mobile phone parts like PCBA
* Camera module
* Connectors
* Back cover, side keys, Mobile phone charger  components
* Inputs or raw materials of Lithiumion battery
* Ink cartridges and ink spray nozzle
* Finished leather products
* Nylon Fibre and Yarn, Plastic builder wares
* Cut and polished synthetic stones, including cut and polished cubic zirconia Ref: List of Costlier Items

Other Links
% Government of India Portal for Union Budget

Tags: Indian Politics,Politics,Investment,Management,

We Need Cost-of-Living-Adjusment Act (2020)

A person earning minimum wages today cannot survive on it year after year.

Following case study done for two years for person in Delhi proves this point:

Item	Expense	Month
Total	7955	Dec-2016
Total	8221	Jan-2017
Total	9006	Feb-2017
Total	9254	Mar-2017
Total	8284	Apr-2017
Total	8497	May-2017
Total	9912	Jun-2017
Total	9051	Jul-2017
Total	7453	Aug-2017
Total	8541	Sep-2017
Total	9880	Oct-2017
Total	11678	Nov-2017

Average Monthly Expenses (2017): 8978

Item	Expense	Month
Total	15128	Dec-2017
Total	10794	Jan-2018
Total	10989	Feb-2018
Total	10385	Mar-2018
Total	13462	Apr-2018
Total	10790	May-2018
Total	10525	Jun-2018
Total	10159	Jul-2018
Total	10340	Aug-2018
Total	13508	Sep-2018
Total	11655	Oct-2018
Total	13777	Nov-2018

Average Monthly Expenses (2018): 11793 (Yearly Change: 31%)
Average Monthly Expenses (2019): 15624 (Yearly Change: 33%)

Item	Expense	Month
Total	16049	Jan-2020
Total	21408	Feb-2020
Total	11997	Mar-2020
Total	11306	Apr-2020
Total	11749	May-2020
Total	11230	Jun-2020
Total	13034	Jul-2020
Total	24481	Aug-2020
Total	24944	Sep-2020
Total	17305	Oct-2020
Total	35500	Nov-2020
Total	25167	Dec-2020

Average Monthly Expenses (2020): 18681 (Yearly Change: 19.6%)

Additional note about year 2020:
- My monthly accomodation rental was about Rs 4000 (for single occupancy).
- In Feb-2020, some expenses involved sister's wedding.
- From Aug 2020 to Dec 2020, there incurred a medical expenses of roughly Rs 8000 per month.
- In Nov 2020, there was an expenditure of about Rs 13000 on a matrimonial site.
- Each year, there is a roughly expenditure of Rs 3000 on phone bill that involves the internet usage.

We see here that:
1. There is an increment of over 31 percent in 2018 in average monthly expenses
2. Average monthly expenses increased by 33 percent in 2019.
3. Average monthly expenses increased by 19.6 percent in 2020.
That is when a person is living hand to mouth and there is no improvement in quality of any aspect of life.
    
We not only need 'Minimum Wages' act but we also need COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) act as well.

How much increment did you get in your last appraisal? If it is below 10 percent, don't even bother to mention it.

Related articles:
% Are Minimum Wages Sufficent?
% Article showing minimum wages set by Indian government:



% Who benefits from a higher minimum wages?

Journal (on Utilitarianism)

Index of Journals

This should be an incident happening somewhere around the mid of the year 2016. I was staying in the Manu Apartments. It is a posh society in East Delhi, Mayur Vihar with seven story high residential towers.
As a society, it also had a management committee that would decide what to do with the maintenance funds that they received from the residents. This time they decided to build a fountain in the society.
Sadly, the fountain that they build was right next to my flat so much so that if I would drop something from the balcony in a vertical free fall, it would drop in the fountain water. My flat was on the ground floor.
The fountain has five hoses from which the water could be pushed out up to the heights of third or fourth floor and when they ran the fountain the height of the water coming from these hoses would be over 2 feet.
The fountain floor layout was of the shape enclosed between an arc and a straight line and it spread from the right corner of the flat to the left spanning my bedroom, then the balcony and then my grandparents’ bedroom. 
The policy that management committee drew was that they would run it for two hours in the morning from 8 am to 10 am and two hours in the evening from 6 pm to 8 pm.
The fountain had rendered my room to be unlivable. 
When the fountain ran, you can’t sleep, you can’t study, you can’t talk on phone as the person on the other end would hear the sound of the water, you can’t think, you can’t rest. You have to constantly monitor your body, your thoughts, your emotions so that you can remain calm.
When my family (my uncle, aunt, grandma and my sister Srishti) went to speak to the management committee on the Sunday afternoon in the weekly meeting of those seven people (the president, secretary (Veena Ralli), treasurer, one female member (Mudita Gupta) and three other members (Anil Dhar, Sanjay Bhargava)), the treasurer (a man and I think a lawyer) gave an argument that I don’t think anyone should forget who is in management, law or politics.
When my family (my uncle, aunt, grandma and my sister Srishti) went to speak to the management committee on the Sunday afternoon in the weekly meeting of those seven people (the president, secretary, treasurer, one female member and three other members), the treasurer (a man and I think a lawyer) gave an argument that I don’t think anyone should forget who is in management, law or politics.
We told them that we were facing difficulty in conducting our day to day life when they operated the fountain. The treasurer said that you have to look at the utility of it. We can’t make 199 other residents unhappy because you have a problem.

A tactic that the secretary had employed to disarm us was of 'appreciation'. My aunt had expressed her concerns that society had set up a 'chaupaal' (open and common sitting area) in front of our balcony on the opposite side of the peripheral road. Aunt said it is not going to be good that drivers, security staff or support staff such as electricians or plumbers sit there and be able to watch us.
To this the secretary smiled and said, "I appreciate how vigilant you have been about all this and everyone should be when it comes to security."

There is another man I’d like to quote here, he is the son of the president of the society and he said, “A waterbody’s location and placement was good for the society according to the Feng shui.” I am not sure why didn’t he built it in his house if it were so important.

It wasn’t only after it was completely done that we protested of this construction. My aunt had protested for this construction even when it was being built. She mentioned in the meeting that waterbody so close to the flat would result in damp patches, blotches or streaks in the walls and would also be a breeding place for the mosquitoes in the summers and fall.

Nothing changed, the arugments had fallen on deaf ears. I left the society in the December for the reasons of my health and studies; my family still lives there.

Any disturbance, any source of worry should not be taken lightly as shown in this excerpt from the book "How to stop worrying and start living" by Dale Carnegie:

When the cruel Chinese war lords wanted to torture their prisoners, they would tie their prisoners hand and foot and put them under a bag of water that constantly dripped... dripped... dripped... day and night. These drops of water constantly falling on the head finally became like the sound of hammer blows-and drove men insane. This same method of torture was used during the Spanish Inquisition and in German concentration camps under Hitler.
Worry is like the constant drip, drip, drip of water; and the constant drip, drip, drip of worry often drives men to insanity and suicide.

Time taken: 45 minutes. Length: 544 words
Tags: Journal,Indian Politics,Politics,Management,Behavioral Science,Emotional Intelligence,Psychology,

Why Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan's Haven failed

Why Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and Jamie Dimon gave up on their venture to disrupt US healthcare

So the CEOs of Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase walked into largest and least efficient healthcare market in the world with a plan to disrupt it—and failed to do so.

Haven, the nonprofit joint venture of the three companies, will end all operations this coming February, after three short years of operation. This development isn’t entirely unexpected, given that most of Haven’s top talent, including its CEO—doctor and high-profile healthcare researcher Atul Gawande, who led the initiative from its inception—had stepped down in the last several months.

Haven’s goal was ambitious: to lower healthcare costs, first for the three companies’ hundreds of thousands of employees, and potentially for all Americans. “We’re able to focus on creating value for families, not shareholders, since we are free from profit-making incentives and constraints,” read the organization’s statement on its now-defunct website.

The venture’s launch generated panic in the healthcare sector, with existing companies seeing it as a potential competitor. But Haven’s birth was cause for enthusiasm, too: It seemed such a formidable trio was destined to succeed despite the enormous challenges facing the US’ muddle of a medical system.

It wasn’t, however. Haven’s goals, organization, and achievements over the last three years are still murky, so it’s hard to determine what exactly led to pulling the plug. But there are hints that point to the natural limits of the venture, and more concerningly, to those of the system it sought to disrupt.

Mission: impossible
Despite the secrecy around the venture, some of what might not have worked can be attributed to its management, as STAT News has reported. A few issues—such as a lack of visible progress, difficulties retaining talent, or the choice of a CEO who, while an expert in the field, had little experience running a company—hobbled the organization’s efforts.

But other problems run deeper. These pertain to Haven’s goals, how they were set up, and whether they were ever remotely attainable.

For one thing, Haven had a mission, but never quite a strategy, as Amitabh Chandra, the director of health policy research at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government tweeted. Its goal to “create simpler, high-quality healthcare at lower costs” (as the nonprofit’s site put it) was as vague as it was ambitious—a vision, rather than a business plan.

Then there was the issue of the companies involved. Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase employ a combined 1.2 million people spread around the country. This makes it an interesting test group for solutions to lower healthcare costs around the country. But that geographic diversity also created a very challenging group to serve, Brian Marcotte, the CEO of National Business Group on Health, told Christina Farr in a conversation on Second Opinion. Healthcare benefits are dependent on the location of the employee, and Haven couldn’t introduce the same programs to all local markets. Instead, it would have to set up plans wherever they had employees, without the critical mass to make it a worthwhile endeavor.

Another problem, too, reported CNBC, was a divergence of interests between the three companies, each of which is expected to continue pursuing research in healthcare solutions for its own employees.

Define disrupt

Of the individual initiatives that may have accelerated the disbanding of Haven, Amazon Care is the most prominent. An initiative for Amazon employees living in the Seattle area, it seems to offer a product in line with what might have been devised by Haven.

An additional benefit offered to employees who have signed up to get healthcare coverage from the company (through traditional insurance policies), Amazon Care allows patients to text with their clinicians, have telehealth visits, get medications delivered, and even see a nurse at home. It seeks to encourage people to make fewer expensive visits to the doctor’s office, by taking care of whatever can be managed without an in-person diagnosis or treatment.

There aren’t yet data on whether Amazon Care is successfully reducing costs—for the employer and, less straightforwardly, for employees. But in any case, its goal is more limited than Haven’s: In the short- to medium-term, Amazon Care aims to save on existing policies, which would be a welcome change, but nowhere near a disruption of the system.

Amazon Pharmacy, another healthcare initiative by Amazon, is much larger in scope. Launched in November, it’s, well, a large online pharmacy. It offers discounts (so far, only on drugs purchased without prescription), and free two-day shipping for Prime customers. But once again, it’s hard to see it as a disruption of anything—rather, it looks like Amazon entering a very lucrative business at a very opportune moment.

No cure for the tapeworm

“Healthcare is the tapeworm of the American economy,” Warren Buffett famously told CNBC in 2018, when presenting Haven. Indeed, the size of the market—fueled by costs exponentially higher than in any other country in the world—continues to expand relentlessly, and is projected to make up 20% of America’s GDP by 2028. But the results of this spending are paradoxical: Americans live shorter, less healthy lives than their peers in other countries, while suffering from an epidemic of bankruptcies related to medical issues (an estimated 66.5% of all bankruptcy filings are caused by medical expenses).

Haven never explicitly said it would try to cure the tapeworm, but it’s telling how many hoped it just might be able to do so. The bandaids introduced by Obamacare in 2009 made it obvious that the US healthcare system is unsustainable, leaving a hunger for solutions: Perhaps employers could reform what the government wasn’t able to.

According to a Haven spokesperson who spoke to CNBC, the company’s team did make progress in “piloting new ways to make primary care easier to access, insurance benefits simpler to understand and easier to use, and prescription drugs more affordable.” But all of these are small, marginal changes in a system whose cost is out of control. Even if clearer policies or transparent pricing reduced costs—which is not a given, as Chandra notes—the cumulative result would have a marginal benefit.

“Haven is yet another cautionary tale to outsiders that hope to disrupt the industry that their ambition is likely unrealistic and that solving key industry problems proves to be far more difficult than most anticipate,” says Jeff Becker, an analyst at Forrester.

By folding, Haven reduces hope in the possibility that private enterprise might fix US healthcare. And it leaves behind a loaded question: If some of the smartest, richest, most knowledgeable, well connected, and ambitious leaders in the room could not find a way to disrupt American healthcare, then who can?

The message on Haven Healthcare's portal:

In the past three years, Haven explored a wide range of healthcare solutions, as well as piloted new ways to make primary care easier to access, insurance benefits simpler to understand and easier to use, and prescription drugs more affordable.
Moving forward, Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. will leverage these insights and continue to collaborate informally to design programs tailored to address the specific needs of their own employee populations.
Haven will end its independent operations at the end of February 2021.  


% Annalisa Merelli (Quartz)
% https://qz.com/1952225/why-amazon-berkshire-hathaway-and-jpmorgans-haven-failed/
 

Don't Endure. Recharge (Lesson in Emotional Intelligence)

    
As constant travelers and parents of a two-year-old, we sometimes fantasize about how much work we could do if we could just get on a plane, undistracted by phones, friends, or Finding Nemo. And so in advance of a trip, we race to get all our groundwork done: packing, going through TSA, doing a last-minute work call, calling each other, boarding. But then when we try to have that amazing in-fl ight work session, we fi nd that we get nothing done. Even worse, after refreshing our email or reading the same studies over and over, we are too exhausted when we land to soldier on with the emails that have inevitably still piled up.

Why can’t we be tougher—more resilient and determined in our work—so we can accomplish all of the goals we set for ourselves? Through our current research, we have come to realize that the problem comes from a cultural misunderstanding of what it means to be resilient, and the resulting impact of overworking.
As a society, we often associate “resilience” and “grit” with a militaristic, “tough” approach to our work. We imagine a Marine slogging through the mud, a boxer going one more round, or a football player picking himself up off the turf for one more play. We believe that the longer we tough it out, the tougher we are, and therefore the more successful we will be.
However, this entire conception is scientifi cally inaccurate.
In fact what’s holding back our ability to be resilient and successful is the lack of any kind of recovery period. Resilience is defined as the ability to quickly bounce back from stressful situations—no matter what problems are thrown at us, we continually get back up, ready for the next one. But even for the most resilient person, getting ready doesn’t happen instantly. It is a process—and an important one. Research has found that there is a direct correlation between lack of recovery and increased incidence of health and safety problems.
And lack of recovery—whether it disrupts our sleep with thoughts of work or keeps us in continuous cognitive arousal as we obsessively watch our phones—is costing our companies $62 billion a year (that’s billion, not million) in lost productivity. [1]
Misconceptions about resilience as nonstop activity and energy are often bred into us from an early age.

For instance, parents might praise the resilience of their high school student who stays up until 3 a.m. to finish a science fair project. But when that exhausted student drives to school, his impaired driving poses risks for himself and others; at school, he doesn’t have the cognitive resources to do well on his English test and has lower self-control with his friends; and at home, he is moody with his parents.
The bad habits we learn when we’re young only magnify when we hit the workforce. In a study released last month, researchers from Norway found that 7.8% of Norwegians have become workaholics, where workaholism is defi ned as “being overly concerned about work, driven by an uncontrollable work motivation, and investing so much time and effort to work that it impairs other important life areas.” [2] And in fact that drive can backfire in the very area for which we’re sacrifi cing ourselves: In her excellent book 'The Sleep Revolution: Transforming Your Life, One Night at a Time', Arianna Huffington wrote, “We sacrifi ce sleep in the name of productivity, but ironically our loss of sleep, despite the extra hours we spend at work, adds up to 11 days of lost productivity per year per worker, or about $2,280.” [3]
The key to resilience is not working really hard all the time. It is actually found in the time that we stop working and recover. Ideally, we need to create cycles for ourselves in which we work hard, then stop and recover, and then work again.
This conclusion is based on biology. Homeostasis, a fundamental biological concept, is the ability of the body to continuously restore and sustain its own well-being.

When the body is out of alignment and therefore in a state of stress or exhaustion from overworking, we waste a vast amount of mental and physical resources trying to return to balance before we can move forward. As Jim Loehr and Tony Schwartz have written in The Power of Full Engagement, the more time you spend in the performance zone, the more time you need in the recovery zone; otherwise you risk burnout.
And if, instead of taking a break, you muster your resources to continue to “try hard,” you need to burn ever more energy in order to overcome your currently low arousal level, which only exacerbates your exhaustion.
It’s a vicious downward spiral.
But the more imbalanced we become due to overworking, the more value there is in activities that allow us to return to a state of balance.
So what are those activities that allow us to return to homeostasis and thereby increase our resilience? Most people assume that if you stop doing a task like answering emails or writing a paper, that your brain will naturally recover, so that when you start again later in the day or the next morning, you’ll have your energy back. But stopping work doesn’t mean you’re actually recovering: If after work you lie around on the couch and check your phone and get riled up by political commentary, or get stressed thinking about decisions about how to renovate your home, your brain has not received a break from high mental arousal states. And surely everyone reading this has occasionally lain in bed for hours, unable to fall asleep because their brain is thinking about work, even if they don’t have a device in hand. If you’re in bed for eight hours, you may have rested, but you can still feel exhausted the next day. That’s because rest and recovery are not the same thing. If you’re trying to build resilience at work, you need adequate internal and external recovery periods. As researchers F. R. H. Zijlstra, M. Cropley, and L. W. Rydstedt wrote in a 2014 paper: “Internal recovery refers to the shorter periods of relaxation that take place within the frames of the workday or the work setting in the form of short scheduled or unscheduled breaks, by shifting attention or changing to other work tasks when the mental or physical resources required for the initial task are temporarily depleted or exhausted. External recovery refers to actions that take place outside of work—e.g., in the free time between the workdays, and during weekends, holidays or vacations.” [4]
There are four main researched ways to increase your resilience. First, start by deliberately opening a space for recovery to happen. We’ve worked with several companies that tout the benefi ts of investing in employee wellbeing, but fail to create tangible results because they don’t carve out time for their workers to devote part of their workday to those rejuvenating activities. Adding more activities to an already full plate of work increases the stress load.
Second, it is crucial that you take all of your paid time off. As we described in a previous HBR article entitled “The Data-Driven Case for Vacation,” taking your days off not only gives you recovery periods to recharge, but in fact signifi cantly raises your productivity and the likelihood of promotion.

Third, while it might sound counterintuitive, it is possible to use technology to limit tech use while building internal recovery periods into your daily routine. The average person turns on their phone 150 times every day. [5]
If every distraction took only 1 minute (which would be seriously optimistic), that would account for 2.5 hours of every day. In her upcoming book The Future of Happiness, based on her work at Yale Business School, Amy Blankson suggests downloading the Instant or Moment apps to see how many times you turn on your phone each day; using the app reminds you to make a choice in those moments when you grab your phone—and choose to stay away. You can also use apps like Offtime or Unplugged to create tech-free zones by strategically scheduling automatic airplane modes. In addition, you can take a cognitive break every 90 minutes to recharge your batteries. Try to not have lunch at your desk, but instead spend time outside or with your friends—not talking about work.
Fourth, now that you have carved out time for rejuvenation, it’s time to engage in an activity or two that make you feel happy and replenished. Take the pressure off and just do something for the fun of it! Go on a walk or run, call and old friend, meditate by watching your breath go in and out for fi ve minutes, try a new recipe, or do something nice for someone else. Choose to do something that makes you feel alive, gives you a mental break from work, and keeps you fully engaged the whole time.
Not only does spending your time this way help you come back stronger, oftentimes these activities are more memorable in the long run.

As for us, we’ve started using our plane time as a work-free zone, and thus as time to dip into the recovery phase. The results have been fantastic. We are usually tired already by the time we get on a plane, and the cramped space and spotty internet connection make work more challenging. Now, instead of swimming upstream, we relax, meditate, sleep, watch movies, journal, or listen to entertaining podcasts. And when we get off the plane, instead of being depleted, we feel rejuvenated and ready to return to the performance zone.

About the author 

Shawn Achor is New York Times best-selling author of The Happiness Advantage and Before Happiness. His TED talk is one of the most popular, with over 14 million views. He has lectured or researched at over a third of the Fortune 100 and in 50 countries, as well as for the NFL, NASA, and the White House. He is leading a series of courses on “21 Days to Inspire Positive Change” with the Oprah Winfrey Network.

Michelle Gielan, a national CBS News anchor turned UPenn positive psychology researcher, is the best-selling author of Broadcasting Happiness. She is partnered with Arianna Huffington to research how a solution-focused mindset fuels success, and shares her research at organizations including Google, American Express, and Boston Children’s Hospital. Michelle is the host of the Inspire Happiness program on PBS.

NOTES

1. J. K. Sluiter, “The Influence of Work Characteristics on the Need for Recovery and Experienced Health: A Study on Coach Drivers,” Ergonomics 42, no. 4 (1999): 573–583; and American Academy of Sleep Medicine, “Insomnia Costing U.S. Workforce $63.2 Billion a Year in Lost Productivity,” ScienceDaily, September 2, 2011.

2. C. S. Andreassen et al., “The Relationships Between Workaholism and Symptoms of Psychiatric Disorders: A Large-Scale Cross-Sectional Study,” PLoS One 11, no. 5 (2016): e0152978.

3. Ronald C. Kessler et al., “Insomnia and the Performance of US Workers: Results from the America Insomnia Survey,” Sleep 34, no. 9 (2011): 1161–1171.

4. F. R. H. Zijlstra et al., “From Recovery to Regulation: An Attempt to Reconceptualize ‘Recovery from Work’” (special issue paper) (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2014), 244.

5. J. Stern, “Cellphone Users Check Phones 150x/Day and Other Internet Fun Facts,” Good Morning America, May 29, 2013.

Adapted from content posted on hbr.org on June 24, 2016, as “Resilience Is About How You Recharge, Not How You Endure” (product #H02Z3O)

Negotiation between Ecuador and Peru to end the border conflict in 1998

    
A Personal Account by Jamil Mahuad, Former President of Ecuador 
    
A fifty-year boundary dispute between Ecuador and Peru ended through the successful negotiation between Jamil Mahuad, president of Ecuador (1998–2000), and Alberto Fujimori, president of Peru (1990–2000).
President Mahuad has taken two negotiation courses at Harvard University—one several years ago with Roger and a seminar more recently with Roger and Dan that explicitly articulated the core concerns framework. During our seminar, President Mahuad realized the extent to which he intuitively had used the core concerns to help resolve the Peru–Ecuador border dispute. We invited him to contribute this chapter to share with readers his creative use of those concerns. 

I took office as president of Ecuador on August 10, 1998, after serving six years as mayor of Quito, my country’s capital.
The main motivation for entering the presidential race was to alleviate poverty and to reduce inequality in my Nevada-sized Andean country of 12 million people. My political strategy was to replicate at a national level the successful formula that I had used while mayor of Quito’s 1.2 million people. My formula was: “Promise attainable projects, deliver on my promises, and stay close to the people.” While I was mayor, Fortune magazine considered Quito one of the ten Latin American cities that greatly improved the quality of life of its citizens.
As I took office, however, the Ecuadorian economy was spiraling into— arguably—its worst economic crisis of the twentieth century.
Simultaneously, political, military, and diplomatic experts foresaw an imminent and perhaps unavoidable new armed conflict with Peru.

THE PERFECT STORM

If you have read The Perfect Storm or have seen the movie based on the book, you’ll have the right mind-set to understand Ecuador’s situation in 1998 and 1999. The film depicts how, in October 1991, the unique combination of three immense meteorological events produced a storm stronger than any in recorded history. A hurricane from the Caribbean and two fronts from Canada and the Great Lakes converged and fed each other in the Atlantic. The storm trapped a small fishing boat from Gloucester, Massachusetts, and doomed its entire crew.
Here’s where the analogy comes through. In 1998–1999, Ecuador was suffering from the once-in-a-century combined effects of: 

- The coastal destruction left by El Niño floods (the largest in five hundred years) 

- Record low-level oil prices (oil then accounted for around half of the Ecuadorian exports and the government’s revenue) 

- The Asian economic crisis (the first global economic crisis) 

These factors came on top of a fiscal deficit of 7 percent of the GDP; the final puffings of a crashing financial system; and a physically destroyed and paralyzed private sector. The inflation rate was 48 percent and the debt to GDP ratio was more than 70 percent—both the highest in Latin America.
Consequently, international creditors—mistrusting Ecuador’s capacity for servicing its debt—were demanding full repayment of loans at maturity and closing their lines of credit.
This economic meltdown demanded immediate attention. My top shortterm priorities were to reduce the fiscal deficit and consequently decrease the inflation rate; to reconstruct the Pacific coastal area of the country recently devastated by the flood; and to restore the country’s credit worthiness through a program with the International Monetary Fund that would get new financing for my social programs, mainly health and education.
Nevertheless, an unexpected twist in the international front forced me to change priorities and work first to avoid a war with Peru. I considered this situation to be my first and most important responsibility morally, ethically, and economically. An international war would have escalated our already critical situation into a desperate one. How could Ecuador face an international war with the economy already in shambles? I needed a definitive peace accord with Peru in order to reduce the military budget, to dedicate our scarce resources to invest in social infrastructure, and to focus our attention and energies on growth and development.

THE CURRENT SITUATION 

The long, tough, disappointing history of armed conflict with Peru represented for Ecuadorians a painful wound. Ecuadorians felt abused, stripped of their legitimate territories by the force of a powerful neighbor supported by the international community.
Here was the scenario the moment I took office: 

- “The oldest armed conflict in the Western Hemisphere.”

The United States State Department called the Ecuador–Peru border dispute the “oldest armed conflict in the Western Hemisphere.” Its roots can be traced back at least to the discovery of the Amazon River in 1542 by the Spanish conquistador Francisco de Orellana or, even before that, to the 1532 precolonial Indian war for the control of the Inca Empire between the Quiteño Atahualpa (now Ecuador) and the Cusqueño Huascar (now Peru).

- The largest land dispute in Latin America. 

The territory historically claimed by both Ecuador and Peru was bigger than France. It constituted the largest disputed territory in Latin America and one of the largest in the world.

- Numerous attempts to resolve the conflict had failed. 

Since the early nineteenth century attempts to reach a solution consistently failed. The countries had tried war, direct conversation, and amicable intervention by third parties, mediation, and first-class arbiters including the King of Spain and President Franklin Roosevelt. None yielded a positive result.
The last period of this conflict started in 1942. After an international war between Ecuador and Peru in mid-1941 and following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States pressed Ecuador and Peru to end definitively their land dispute. In 1942 in Rio de Janeiro, the two countries signed a treaty called the Protocol of Peace, Friendship and Limits. Known in short as the Rio Protocol, this treaty was guaranteed by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and the United States.
The Rio Protocol established that part of the boundary between Ecuador and Peru would be a watershed (a ridge of high ground) between the Santiago and Zamora rivers. It turned out, however, that between these two rivers there was not a single watershed, but a third river, the Cenepa. As a result, out of a 1500 kilometer-long block of land marked frontier, approximately 78 kilometers remained an “open wound.”
Armed conflict erupted in 1981 and again in 1995, but did not settle the issue. On the contrary, more bitterness and mutual mistrust developed. This zone was epitomized by the outpost of Tiwintza, a small area of land where soldiers from both countries had been killed and buried. Tiwintza became a heroic symbol to each country.
The post-1995 negotiation process had advanced important agreements regarding future joint projects, mutual security, trust, commerce, and navigational rights over some tributaries of the Amazon. Nonetheless, all this progress was contingent on a final agreement over Tiwintza.
As an almost final effort to overcome entrenched positions, Ecuador and Peru asked a special commission for a nonmandatory but morally important opinion (a Parecer) on the issue. The special commission was known as a Juridical–Technical International Commission and included representatives of Argentina, Brazil, and the United States. The opinion of the commission was released a few weeks before I was elected president. It expressed the view that Tiwintza was part of the sovereign territory of Peru. That opinion, contrary to the situation on the ground where Ecuadorian troops had been for decades, stirred up escalating hostility between the two countries.
By the time I took office, the troops from Ecuador and Peru had occupied the previously agreed upon demilitarized zone. They faced one another so closely that, in some places, they could shake hands and say Buenos días before raising their rifles. The Ecuadorian military command briefed me that a Peruvian invasion starting a few hours after my inauguration was a likely scenario. Peru would most likely provoke not a localized but a generalized armed conflict. The magnitude of this risk was perceived only by the most informed echelon of society. The rest of the country was immersed in their struggle to survive the economic difficulties and was distracted temporarily by the new president’s inauguration.

THE CHALLENGE: AGAINST ALL ODDS

Upon stepping into office, pursuing peace with Peru would require: 

- Belief. 

There would have to be the popular belief that the war could be resolved. Myths are almost impossible to debunk; the intractability of the problem with Peru had deep roots in Ecuadorians’ flesh and souls.

- Civic participation. 

Making peace between Ecuador and Peru would have to be a “people’s project,” not a government issue. There would need to be a boost in participation of the people represented by any legitimate organization or group.

- Trust. 

Cooperation and mutual trust would need to be elicited from all sectors in this fragmented country.

- Political support. 

A formula for peace would need to be created. It would have to be acceptable for both countries and for many different sectors in each country.

- Economic stability. 

There would need to be ways to bring economic stability to a country on the verge of war. In such a moment of distress, how could the government go about dictating badly needed, but unpopular, economic adjustments that would compromise the national unity and governability of Ecuador? 

- A clear, coherent, comprehensive action plan. 

The resulting plan would need to be not only military but also economic, political, and international in scope.

PREPARING FOR PEACE 

Since the purpose of this chapter is showing the core concerns in action, I’ll focus my attention on the negotiation strategy of the border conflict and some interactions with my colleague, President Alberto Fujimori of Peru, while ignoring the complications of the economic situation in Ecuador.
I needed a talented governmental cabinet to carry out peace efforts. Dr Jose Ayala, allegedly the most respected Ecuadorian diplomat, had been minister of foreign affairs and had conducted peace negotiations. I asked him to remain in his role. General Jose Gallardo had been minister of defense during the most recent armed conflict in 1995; that conflict had ended with an Ecuadorian military victory. I appointed General Gallardo to be minister of defense. In short, I appointed the chancellor of peace and the general of war as members of my cabinet. This was done to send a clear signal: Although Ecuador was openly inclined to a peaceful solution, we were ready to defend ourselves fiercely if necessary.
Chancellor Ayala informed me of the general perception that nearly every contentious issue had been agreed upon by the two diplomatic delegations. The remaining point, the territorial dispute of the zone symbolized by Tiwintza, was something that only the presidents themselves could decide. It required a final stage of diplomacy at the highest level —“Presidential Diplomacy” as the press labeled it.
I phoned Professor Roger Fisher at his Harvard Law School office and invited him to come to Quito and join the Ecuadorian government team to analyze the current situation, brainstorm possible approaches, and prepare a negotiation strategy.
When Roger arrived in Quito, we worked on various fronts simultaneously. We carefully reviewed with the ministers of defense and foreign affairs the up-to-date military and diplomatic facts. To get everybody on the same page, Roger offered, for the benefit of some cabinet and staff members connected with the negotiation, a half-day presentation of his classic Seven Elements of Negotiation and some useful techniques for their application.
Due to the current tensions, a personal meeting of the two presidents was most unlikely to occur. However, in preparation for an eventual encounter with President Fujimori, Roger and I examined ways to start a personal working relationship.
The first two or three days in any new job can be hectic. A presidential office is no exception. Our meetings were frequently interrupted by urgent events. We had some of our sessions at odd times and places. I remember slipping Roger into my office between two scheduled appointments and meeting him in the dining room of my residence in the palace after eleven at night.

KEY ELEMENTS IN BUILDING EMOTIONAL RAPPORT 

In a negotiation process, the relationship among the negotiators is as important as the substance of the negotiation. My first strategic decision was to build upon the existing working relationship already established between the two national negotiation teams. My nondelegable, crucially important mission was to build personal rapport with President Fujimori, a man I had not met. It was a challenge to figure out how I would do that.
In my third day in office, I received an unexpected call from President Cardoso of Brazil. He invited me to a personal meeting with President Fujimori in Asuncion del Paraguay, where all three of us were scheduled to be thirty-six hours later for the inauguration of President Cubas.
Two facts were clear to me. I badly needed that first encounter. And I was not yet ready to tackle the substance of the problem. How could I communicate the seriousness of my intentions to President Fujimori without giving him the impression that I was just buying time and procrastinating? 

Appreciation: Show Your Understanding of His Merits and Difficulties 

Our team agreed to make it clear to President Fujimori that I appreciated his years of involvement in the boundary problem and the knowledge he must have derived from that experience. That assessment of President Fujimori’s situation would have been plainly true for any dispassionate observer. I expected that such initial recognition would help us find an emotional common ground to serve as a basis for future conversations. My preparation with Roger started like this: 

ROGER: What is the purpose of your first meeting with President Fujimori? 

JAMIL: I see two purposes. I want to get to know him and his vision about the current situation. And I want to get his commitment that we are going to exhaust dialogue before stepping into war. For these purposes, I would like to listen first and ask him questions.

ROGER: Great purposes. But if you go after him with a lot of questions, he may feel as if the FBI is interrogating him. He’s likely to clam up. An easier and perhaps wiser approach would be to have President Fujimori come to feel that he knows you. Be open. Start by laying some of your cards on the table. 

That was precisely what I did. Using stories, historical examples, and anecdotes, I explained to President Fujimori how I understood the difficult situation he was facing. I asked for his reciprocal understanding of the extremely complex scenario I was acting on. He responded well, although cautiously. In a soft, tranquil voice, he stated, “My three goals when I started my presidency were to eliminate hyperinflation, to dismember the Shining Path guerrillas, and to finish the border issue with Ecuador. I have accomplished the first two already. The third one must be concluded as well.”
That gave me the opportunity to express frankly my admiration for his work on both of the first two issues, which was universally applauded, while adopting a wait-and-see attitude about the third.

Affiliation: Find Some Common Ground 

A major task was to change the widespread perception of the bad relationship between the two countries. This task was faced by President Fujimori and myself, as well as by our staff and officials, the media, and the public at large. For years, each country had regarded the other as an enemy.
President Fujimori and I agreed that a goal should be to have the public in each country come to see that we were working together, side by side, toward the settlement of the centuries-old boundary conflict.
Since “one picture is worth a thousand words,” Roger suggested that I arrange for a photograph to be taken of the two presidents. I said that would not be a problem. The media would be present before and after our meeting.
Rather than a picture of us shaking hands or standing next to each other, however, Roger wanted us to be sitting, side by side, each with a pen or pencil in his hand, both looking at a map or a pad on which there might be some kind of draft proposal. We would not be looking at the camera or at each other but rather working. Such a photograph might help convince third parties, the media, and the public that things had started to change for the better. The photograph would make clear that the presidents were in a collaborative effort, tackling the boundary problem together.
When I returned from Paraguay, I showed Roger a newspaper with a front-page photograph of the two presidents working together (image shown below). 
I told Roger that I knew the photograph was intended to influence the public. What surprised me was the extent to which the photograph also influenced President Fujimori and me. Looking at the photograph, President Fujimori said that the public in each country would now be expecting us to settle the boundary. We had publicly undertaken that task, and we owed it to the people in each country to succeed.

Status: “I’ll Recognize His Seniority” 

President Fujimori and I met for the first time in Asuncion. We were in the presidential suite kindly offered by the Argentinean President Carlos Menem as a neutral territory. At that time, President Fujimori had been president of Peru for eight years and I had been president of Ecuador for four days.
“You can make a first impression only once,” I reminded myself.
“Stating the evident will not harm my position. Contrarily, it will convey the image of an open, objective person,” I thought. “I’ll recognize his seniority, a personal matter where there’s no debate, and I will not accept his substantive proposals about delicate matters where there’s a hot debate.”
I said, “President Fujimori, you’ve been president for eight years. I’ve been a president for four days. You have negotiated with four of my predecessors. I would like us to benefit from your extensive experience.” I asked him, “Do you have ideas on how we might deal with this border dispute in a way that would meet the interests of both Peru and Ecuador?”



This photograph on the front page of an Ecuador newspaper helped change the political climate in 1998 by showing presidents Mahuad of Ecuador and Fujimori of Peru working together side by side. 

I recognized his seniority with courteous gestures, which were reciprocated by him. For example, I always made sure he entered rooms first as the senior president. In this way, I acknowledged and respected his seniority, a particular status of President Fujimori. I also acknowledged my own particular status as president and as a connoisseur of the Ecuadorian reality.
To recognize areas where President Fujimori held high status did not imply that I was agreeing with him or with his position. Contrarily, when combined with showing appreciation, honoring his status gave me room to manifest my openly discrepant standings without endangering the relationship.

Autonomy: Do Not Tell Others 

What to Do Autonomy is a core concern for human beings, particularly sensitive for figures like politicians who are in positions of authority. For many years, Ecuador and Peru refused to negotiate with one another, each fearing that they would be seen as “giving in” to the other’s demands. No politician likes to be seen as a puppet of anybody else, especially when each one is on a different side of a centuries-old conflict.
It would be dangerous for a president to do something that would make our constituents suspicious or otherwise put us in a difficult position in our own country.
In all our meetings, I was very conscientious to respect his autonomy and to ensure my own. It would have been deadly wrong, for example, to try to tell President Fujimori what to do. Rather I asked for his perceptions and reactions on how we two presidents might best settle this protracted and costly boundary dispute.
My personal respect for him did not imply that I was agreeing with him or with his demand. “I simply cannot ask Congress and the people to give in to the demands of Peru. I’m not going to do it. Were I to do it, Congress would never agree; nor would any Ecuadorian. That’s a dead-end road.
What are your alternative ideas on how we might move forward toward a peaceful agreement?”
I asked President Fujimori to appreciate the fact that the Ecuadorian president, Congress, and people would never concede to this Peruvian claim. Our autonomy would be crushed.

Role: “Us” Means “Us” for Both Sides 

Negotiators play multiple, simultaneous, sometimes contradictory, overlapping, or complementary roles. In an effort to settle this longstanding boundary dispute, each president would have a crucial job. Each would have the task of bringing his own constituents to accept a settlement of the boundary. I saw my role as leading two simultaneous negotiations. One role, obviously, was as negotiator with President Fujimori. The other role, not so obvious but equally important, was my role as a negotiator with the people of Ecuador, its institutions, and representative organizations.
I recognized that President Fujimori had the same two roles and faced the same tasks. Therefore, I proposed to him we not do anything to harm each other’s legitimacy as authorized representatives of our peoples. For instance, it would have been self-defeating to claim that a treaty was good for Ecuador because it was bad for Peru—or vice versa.
On the contrary, I saw that the role of each president was to demonstrate that an agreement was good for both countries, good for the region, good for trade, good for economic development, and good for the alleviation of poverty. We needed a win-win proposition. In crafting that proposition, our roles were both stressful and full of personal meaning.
Too often in international affairs, the goal is seen as obtaining a commitment from the other side. The media keep asking: “Who backed down?” “Who gave in?” “Did you reach an agreement?” “No? So the negotiations failed?” They want to see us playing the role of the victorious hero defeating a deceitful enemy. But “us” means “us” for both sides. In a negotiation, the most useful and powerful outcome may be an emotional commitment to continue working together in order to implement a peace agreement after signing it. Working together did not suggest that either of us gave up our liberty, our discretion, or our autonomy.
Rather, we transformed a problem into an opportunity. That required a new conception of the roles we played: a shift from opponents to colleagues, from positional bargainers in a merely distributional zero-sum game to joint problem solvers inventing new options to increase the size of the pie and the scope of possible outcomes.

Core Concerns as a Bundle 

At some moments, the situation called for intertwining different core concerns and reinforcing them at different levels. One particularly challenging circumstance stands out. The nonbinding opinion (Parecer) of the international experts gave a big push to Peru’s claim to Tiwintza. It would have been impossible, however, for any Ecuadorian president to yield to the claim without losing legitimacy, demeaning his presidential status, betraying his role, and risking his people’s appreciation and affiliation. I wanted to recognize the strength and merits of the Peruvian case, and at the same time to get appreciation for the Ecuadorian situation, my autonomy, and my role.
My sensitivity to these core concerns helped me navigate this difficult terrain. “President Fujimori,” I said, “Peru has a strong claim to the disputed area. Because of the commission’s Parecer, it may, in fact, be stronger than Ecuador’s claim (appreciating Peru’s point). If I were president of Peru, I’d have no other option than to seek to get every square meter of that land (appreciating merit in Peru’s perspective).
Yet, as president of Ecuador, I cannot agree to give Peru territory that every president and every Congress since Ecuador was born has insisted is part of Ecuador. (I was asking him to reciprocate by appreciating my situation and understanding my difficulties.) We are convinced that we have the moral and legal rights over the area in dispute, and we’re not going to change that conviction because of a nonbinding technical opinion (Parecer). One hundred more opinions like that one wouldn’t be sufficient to change our centuries-old feelings of ownership over those territories. (As a country, we have our autonomy.) Hence, any president of Ecuador should say and do what I’m saying and doing. (Asking for his reciprocal affiliation.) Now, in our role as presidents, we can undertake our new mission, which is to find a formula acceptable for the peoples in both countries.” (I was searching for an additional common ground of affiliation in fairness and justice.) This dialogue had the noticeable effect of committing us both to a joint problem-solving approach. Our predominantly rational, carefully prepared, goal-oriented initial steps were additionally fueled by the rapport built rapidly between us and among our delegations. Peace became a flashing beacon, a powerful magnetic force taking up most of our time and energy during my first seventy-seven days in office.

THE AGREEMENT 

We kept the people of Ecuador permanently informed about the advance of our negotiation. As progress was evident, a virtuous circle replaced the old vicious one. Negotiation became popular and openly a part of our national objectives. Participation increased. Everybody wanted to be part of the process and to express their voices. Common goals enhanced trust. Political actors started giving support because they understood gains were larger than risks if they represented the now popular will for peace. Belief in a negotiated solution replaced the usual pessimism. Overwhelming support at all levels of society boosted the government’s initial action plan. Although this peace process did not stabilize the economy, the menace of war no longer worsened the economic situation.
On October 26, 1998, in Brasilia, ten weeks after our first meeting,
President Fujimori and I signed a final, comprehensive peace treaty that was ratified by the Congress of each country. The two countries agreed that the entire disputed boundary area would become an international conservation park in which there would be no economic or military activities except as the two governments might later agree.
Tiwintza itself required special treatment. We two presidents agreed that if the representatives of the four countries that were helping us could concur on a recommendation for Tiwintza, we would commit ourselves to accept it.
Congresses of both countries voted to give the representatives authority to arbitrate.
A creative agreement for Tiwintza was formulated. The representatives separated sovereignty rights from property rights over Tiwintza. Thus, the land is now within the sovereign territory of Peru. And one square kilometer of land around Tiwintza, just inside Peru and adjoining Ecuador, is now private property owned in perpetuity by the government of Ecuador (just as Ecuador might own some land in Lima, Peru). Neither country “gave up”
Tiwintza. The government of Peru can say, “Tiwintza is part of our sovereign territory.” The government of Ecuador can say, “We own Tiwintza forever.”

A FINAL REFLECTION 

I agree with Roger and Dan that negotiators often assume that the best way to negotiate is purely rational. To be sure, strong hostile emotions easily escalate and cause problems. Yet, more importantly, in my experience, emotions can be helpful. When going into negotiations, I was ready to take the initiative and act upon each of the core concerns—on appreciation, affiliation, autonomy, status, and role. In doing so, President Fujimori and I established good rapport, a strong working relationship, and a stable agreement.
The Ecuador-Peru negotiations of 1998 were in themselves a complete success. The boundary was settled and has remained so. Not a single border military incident has been reported since that time. Binational trade and cooperation have reached historical records, and peace has been praised, valued, and owned by governments and citizens alike on both sides of the border.
My major reason for wanting to establish peace between Ecuador and Peru was to give both countries the benefits that only peace could bring.
Additionally, establishing peace with Peru would enable Ecuador to reduce its military budget. Those resources could then be devoted to programs to alleviate poverty. And that is what my administration did after the treaty was signed in 1998.
In January 2000, a military-backed coup forced me out of office for reasons too complicated to go into in this document. This fate is one I share with many Latin American presidents.
That is part of the official side of the story. On the personal side,
Alberto Fujimori and I gradually developed a personal friendship beyond the call of our duties.
In March 2004, over a cup of coffee in Tokyo’s Royal Park Hotel, we reflected on the lessons we learned. Alberto said, “Peace is consolidated.
Everybody respects it.” In the beginning, few of us believed that peace was possible. Now it was owned by everybody.
Alberto and I remembered a conversation we had in Brazil during the peace process. After a press conference, I had told him: “Things are changing. The situation used to be pretty clear: Ecuadorian journalists on one side, Peruvian journalists on the other. Now they’re mixed together. That’s a good omen for the future.”
Alberto had said, “Yesterday, while reading an article in a Lima newspaper, I felt as if you and I were on the pro-peace side, facing together some opposition to peace in both countries.” I nodded in agreement.
Since the beginning, we had worked together to satisfy our core concerns for affiliation, appreciation, and autonomy. Our status was respected. And our roles were fulfilling. We had created an atmosphere to advance substantive content. As almost always happens, process and substance walked hand in hand.