Spiritual quotient (SQ) is a measure that looks at a person’s spiritual acumen; it is as important as intelligence quotient (IQ) and emotional quotient (EQ). While IQ looks at cognitive intelligence, EQ looks at emotional power of a person and spiritual quotient (SQ) looks at spiritual power of a person. Spirituality increases the ability of a person to be creative and to be aware and insightful. The power of intuition and awareness can be increased with help of spirituality. Why SQ is even more important in today’s time? It helps tremendously coping up and do away with modern problems of terrorism, inconsiderateness, lack of humanness. The concept of Spiritual Quotient (SQ) is fast emerging as the next big aspect of scientific study as it directly correlates to a person’s awareness and consciousness.

Human beings have five senses: sight (eyes), hearing (ears), taste (tongue), smell (nose), and touch (sensatory). Spirituality is the ability to recognize that there is intelligence beyond our five senses. There is universal power that creates and governs everything within and beyond the worlds we know, and that power is omnipresent. We can surrender to this supreme intelligence through our awareness. We call this universal power by different names as per our religious faith. Spirituality makes things easier for us to go through the life’s journey with all its ups and downs. It makes our lives happier.

Spirituality exists within us: it does not require great efforts from our side to search it. Spiritual wisdom doesn’t need to involve fables and mysticism. It does not require to be linked to organized religion, although people with strong religious faith often experience high levels of well-being. Living happily depends on how much we are at peace with our inner self, our core – our thoughts, emotions, beliefs and desires. Our spiritual dimension gives us strength to find a sense of inner peace of both peace of mind and peace in the heart. It allows our inner values to steer through peaceful interactions with the world around us. It develops our concern for others, our concern for Mother Nature, and other living beings and it improves our conscious effort to make a positive contribution to society.

The importance of spirituality has been historically neglected in education. Even educational branches such as medicine, nursing, psychiatry, and psychotherapy lack spirituality aspect. The importance of Emotional Intelligence or EQ has been established; spirituality needs have not been systematically researched, examined and studied.

SQ makes us more responsible of ourselves, family, society, our surrounding, our country and then our universe too. It helps us to interconnect our personal vision with the larger good of humanity. It makes us more humble in our perspective. To a great extent it reduces our selfish intentions. We, human beings, carry big egos, and want to feel all important. We tend to get swayed with our power, status and money. We never realize if we are that important in this world. Our arrogance or our humility spoils our relations with so many people. Human race has progressed on innumerable innovations made. With each innovation, the level of comfort enjoyed is higher. But, are we really happier? Though we have made materialistic progress, though we have too many comforts compared to previous generations are we really happier? Here is where spirituality helps us to find our inner peace of mind. A long and healthy life is important for any individual. Ill-health can either halt one’s progress or, even if one succeeds, result in the ‘gifts’ of a heart disease, blood pressure or diabetes. A happy individual also builds a happy family and society.

Spiritual Quotient therefore is the ability of an individual to see his personal vision and the consequent endeavor to achieve the same through the understanding of the larger good to the society, bringing good health and happiness to him and the world at large. An in-depth review that compared spirituality and religiousness to other health interventions found that people with a strong spiritual life had an 18% reduction in mortality. Giancarlo Lucchetti, lead author of the study, calculates that the life-lengthening benefits of spirituality can be compared to eating a high amount of fruits and vegetables or taking blood pressure medication, https://nygoodhealth.com.

The question that might come to mind after reading the above is – why do we need to be spiritual to realize these fairly straightforward implications? The answer is simple – unless we set apart time in our daily busy schedule to make steady progress in our spiritual journey, we will not get time to even think about these issues. Spirituality brings depth to an individual’s approach and perspective towards leading a more meaningful life.

As humans we get wrong ideas about so many aspects; each of us is busy trying to prove our worth. Each one of us is trying to be better than somebody, how many of us have destroyed ourselves in the rat race….. How many of us have wasted our time, efforts, energy and almost everything on this planet just trying to look a little better than somebody else. It is such a horrible waste of life, because you will never blossom into your full potential if you keep thinking how to be better than somebody. SQ helps us in fixing our priorities of life; it helps us in understanding do the best that you can – what has to happen will happen.

Today, in the corporate world also most of the organizations and institutions have realized and acknowledged that their human element, what is called ‘human resource’ is not simply intellectual property consisting of human knowledge and skills, but is human spirit as well. Corporate have realized that they need to nurture and value the human spirit which is an integral part of leadership. Spirituality is not a mere element which needs reference and regular discussions on it; its practice and application will reduce commotion and misconduct to a greater extent. Lot of awareness is growing in applying spirituality in the workplace.

Abraham Maslow had suggested in his ‘Need Hierarchy’ model that as nations and their populations became more affluent, so would their spiritual hunger become stronger. Perhaps the changing world and its markets which are strongly characterized through globalization, we see volatile environments and shorter product life cycles. We also see organizations breaking rules and law of lands. Ethical practices remain only in books never to be practiced. The way that companies treat their employees is another important consideration.
How many firms are socially responsible by providing a reasonable working environment while paying adequate wages and benefits? How many firms follow the human rights? Even if it doesn’t directly commit abuses, a company may work with suppliers or subcontractors who are responsible for human rights violations, such as using child labor. The health and safety of both the workforce and the surrounding community can be a major issue

Organizations such as Reckit and Coleman, Wipro, Dabur, Tata Tea and many others are among a growing number of organizations that have embraced spirituality at workplace. And, it is observed that these organizations have realized that spiritual growth is like learning math: once you master Algebra and are able to solve any equation in Algebra you also get fascinated to solve Geometrical equations, thus increasing mind capacity to think in multiple areas. Spirituality makes us ethically strong and an increased capacity to be compassionate.

A whistleblower is a person who exposes misbehavior, a wrongdoing, alleged dishonesty or illegal activity occurring in an organization/society. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, sexual molestation and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally; for example, to other people within the accused organization or externally to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues. Whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing corruption, fraud, and mismanagement, and in preventing disasters that arise from negligence or wrongdoing. Those within public institutions and the private sector who speak out about wrongdoing potentially save lives and resources. It is in the public interest that the law protects whistleblowers so that they can speak out if they find mismanagement in an organization. Blowing the whistle is more formally known as ‘making a disclosure in the public interest.’ Whistleblowers risk their job, sometimes their life, and their prestige for social welfare. It is therefore the society’s obligation to protect them from getting victimized.

The term whistle-blower comes from the whistle – a referee uses to indicate an illegal or foul play. US civic activist Ralph Nader coined the phrase in the early 1970s.

They are a crucial source of intelligence to help society, organizations and governments in identifying wrongdoings and hazards in society. However, often whistleblowers have been disgracefully treated for doing good. They are victimized and oppressed for their good work. We have heard of too many cases of inexcusable treatment given to whistleblowers by others in society – their colleagues, head of departments, statutory bodies, police, and government. In 2005, in India, Shanmughan Manjunath, a former manager at Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL), spoke against adulteration of petrol. He was shot dead on November 19, 2005, allegedly by a petrol pump owner from Uttar Pradesh. This lack of action has a profound impact on confidence and trust in the system, and means that employees are less likely to blow the whistle for fear of what may happen to them. An engineer, Satyendra Dubey, was murdered in November 2003; Dubey had blown the whistle against appalling frauds taking place in the Golden Quadrilateral project by the National Highway Authority of India. Take the recent case of D.K.Ravi an additional commissioner of commercial taxes (enforcement) a 2009-batch Indian Administrative Service officer, whose death was camouflaged as suicide; Ravi fought against the land mafia in Karnataka for which he had to die unnaturally at a very young age.

The corporate world is also the same. Under the lable of organization “ethos” and “loyalty” lot of ill-doing has to be borne by employees and many things are hushed up in organizations. Prior to the 1960s, corporations had broad self-sufficiency in employee policies and could fire an employee at will, even for no reason. Employees were expected to be “loyal” to their organizations at any cost. Then labour unions were formed, and unions made noise for anything and everything. But, then you also get to see organizations like IBM who allow open-door policy which allowed employees to discuss their issues and grievances if any.

In a survey of Ministry of Defense employees, only 40% of respondents felt they would not suffer retaliation if they raised a concern, and a survey of Department of Health employees found only 54% of respondents felt confident that they could speak up. Over one third of civil service employees do not even know how to raise a concern under the civil service code. Take the case of Durga Shakti Nagpal IAS of 1984 cadre who was suspended for launching a massive drive against corruption and illegal sand mining within her jurisdiction of Gautam Budh Nagar and later for allegedly demolishing an illegal mosque wall in a village in Greater Noida. Of course in her case, the opposition political parties, associations of Indian bureaucrats and the general public on online social media demanded for her suspension to be revoked and it was done!

Whistleblower’s problems are often concealed rather than solved. Globally, there have been multiple instances of threatening, harassment and even murder of various whistleblowers. The India Law Ministry is working on a draft to amend the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2011 aimed at safeguarding against disclosures affecting sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, etc. Whistleblower’s protection should be broadly defined without any loopholes in it.

Culturally whistleblowing implies betrayal. There is still a gap between the promoting and protecting whistleblowers. In most of organizations employees are scared to speak up for fear of personal punishment or losing job. Many times employees confide some wrongdoing in a wrong or faulty person; he/she misguide the whistleblower by carrying tales to the higher-ups. Most times employees feel that no one is listening; they are unlikely to report any malpractice or misconduct that they see. Speaking out is difficult, especially in a culture where brazenness is practiced openly.

Whistleblowing is most effective when it operates in an open-door culture that actively encourages employees to report concerns. It works in societies/governments/organizations which work for bringing in a positive change. Not only does this create an environment where problems are dealt with before they become potentially damaging risks. The mentality of the top level is vital. Quality communication in handling the matter is essential.

A new report which was co-authored by researchers from Australian NGO Blueprint for Free Speech, Transparency International Australia, Griffith University and Melbourne University,  on the state of affairs of whistleblower protection based on a research in some of the world’s richest countries has found that Germany ranks alongside Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey where whistlebloweres are not protected. These countries do the least to ensure that whistleblowers can speak out without fear of revenge. The report found that serious shortcomings remained in most of the above mentioned countries – and those shortcomings affected most of the areas potential whistleblowers would be concerned about. Provisions for whistleblowers to remain anonymous when using internal channels to express their concerns were identified as a particular weakness. Most of the EU states are poor in protecting whistleblowers.

There is limited research about the psychological impact of whistle blowing. However, poor experiences of whistleblowing can cause discouragement to people who want to voice disorders. Whistleblowers often become paranoid, anxious and suffer from nightmare.   Depression is often reported by whistleblowers, and suicidal thoughts may occur in up to about 10%. Their health conditions often decline as they become fearful. In short, whistleblowers suffer for speaking. Nobody in power likes whistleblowers.

Precise, clear, inclusive, simple, and effective legislation must be introduced to protect those who, in good faith and on rational grounds, speak out against suspected acts of wrongdoing. It is everybody’s responsibility to provided safe and peaceful atmosphere for whistleblowers.  As a society we can no longer afford to ignore their wellbeing. There should not be gaps between writing policy, adopting it, and then going on with business as usual. Let’s stop the duplicity somewhere.

Why are so many nations and organizations failing in the world? The reason is simple – wrong people are at the helm of affairs and they are the ones calling the shots. When incompetent people get promoted and start taking deadly decisions nations and organizations doom. Dr. Laurence J Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, describe that in a hierarchy every person/employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence. And, their incompetence can cause anarchy. They get promoted mainly due to their seniority (number of years in service) or sometimes earlier because of favoritism/ nepotism. When people are promoted as far as they deserve their outputs are the best but sooner or later when they are promoted to a position at which they are not suitable, the problem begins. Managing upward is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly “manage” superiors in order to limit the damage that they end up doing. Some of the damages are irreparable and hence organizations collapse.

I have great regards for our ex Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s capability in economic reforms of this country.  He’s a great academician and thinker. In 1991, as India faced a severe economic crisis, newly elected Prime Minister P.V.Narsimha Rao surprisingly inducted the apolitical Manmohan Singh into his cabinet as Finance Minister. Over the next few years, despite strong opposition, he as a Finance Minister carried out several structural reforms that liberalized India’s Economy. But, sadly he represented the paradox as Prime Minister of India – possibly because he is so honest and is not a keen politician. He could not play dirty games. Dr.Singh failed presiding over gross dishonesty. The answer to the paradox is, however, simple: it lies in The Peter Principle. Dr. Singh is the ultimate exemplar of the Peter Principle at work.

In an organizational structure, the Peter Principle’s practical application allows evaluation of the potential of an employee for a promotion based on performance in the current job. He might be doing a good job because of various reasons and elements. He must be sharing great rapport with his boss and peers, he must be enjoying the functionality of the job, but no sooner he is promoted in the upward hierarchical position, he might turn out to be a misfit. That level is the employee’s “level of incompetence” where the employee has no chance of further promotion, thus reaching their career’s ceiling in an organization.

The employee’s ineffectiveness is not necessarily exposed as a result of the higher-ranking position being more difficult. It can simply be because of that job is different from the job in which the employee previously excelled, and thus requires different work skills, which the employee may not possess. Let me give you an example: when a good surgeon skilled, very competent both in diagnosis and prognosis gets promoted in a hospital in the administrative position as “Dean” or “Director” he might fumble or fail because of lack of administrative skills. This is not a unique example. In reality, it has been observed that technically qualified people turn out to be poor administrators.

Taking decisions of putting people back in their previous comfort level requires lot of guts. But perhaps the best way to address the Peter Principle in an organization would be to introduce a policy of relegating employees to their fitting level of competence without the stigma of failure.  If an employee isn’t working out in a higher position, allowing him to go back to whatever position he excelled in would avoid the bad effects. This would, however, require the supervisor who made the poor promotion decision to admit he made a mistake, an act not often found in the higher levels of a hierarchy.

Another reason of promoting people without checking their competence is nepotism and favoritism. Many nations and organizations suffer because of nepotism. Nepotism is the practice among those with power to influence or to favor relatives or friends. It has a considerable negative effect on Human Resources practice. It creates bad taste besides job satisfaction, quitting intention, and feeling of negativity. It creates lot of tensions and fights among people. Nepotism is indeed an unprofessional phenomenon that provides benefits merely to the family members or close friends. It paralyzes human resource practices and affects the level of satisfaction among employees. We have witnessed in history, and even today, nepotism has created Peter Principle situations in good organization which have only led them to downfall. In a recent article on Forbes.com it is admitted to promoting a culture of nepotism within its own executive stratum. While B.C.Forbes in early 19^th century remained heavily involved with the publications for rest of life, he gave top positions to his oldest sons, Malcolm and Bruce. Though Forbes did very well and grew; perhaps the publications would have done much better than they have done till date, if the right persons would handle the affairs at top.

Another solution to the Peter Principle would be paying higher pay without promotions. Employees often accept a promotion not for the power or prestige but the increased pay attached to it. If companies offer higher pay increases for excellent work within the same position, the Peter Principle can be averted to a great extent. While the employee makes more money and he’s comfortable in his competent position.

Peter suggests that a manager who finds himself encumbered with an incompetent employee has the option to get rid of that employee without firing him. Peter suggests giving employees with seniority a longer title with less responsibility. This way the employee still feels important, but is kept away from the important, burning matters, so to speak. Peter also recommends percussive sublimation as a way to get an incompetent employee out of a manager’s hair. In this method, the incompetent employee is simply promoted to another position in another division.

Perhaps the most important factor in avoiding the Peter Principle is an alert employee, one who is aware of the extent of his capabilities. The offer of a promotion is tempting, but the employee must consider the extra responsibilities and jobs that come with it. Of course, the employee can simply turn down a promotion if he feels its afar his capability, an action Peter referred to as Peter’s Parry.

The Peter Principle advises managements not to gamble with talent management and promotions. Instead take the time to ensure that the right people are in the right roles in an organization. It’s better to ensure that the person has the desire and inclination to be a leader before promoting him/her. If they don’t have inclination, don’t force it on them, but rather create career paths to maximize their contribution and receive the recognition they crave for. There are good numbers of people out there who refuse promotions because they feel burdened and are not keen on making a mess in their career. I think such people are genuine and sincere humans.

Another thing organizations need to realize is that everyone does not know how to lead. Leading requires lot of maturity, capability and an aptitude; especially the first-time managers fumble when they need to lead seniors and capable people.  Before promoting people to higher levels organizations must provide them with objective feedback and coaching early and often. If they easily shift into the role, only then should they be promoted. I think skill broadening and enhancing techniques in regular intervals through training and development is need of the hour to avoid Peter Principle.