LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Leadership development refers to any activity that enhances the quality of leadership within an individual or organization. These activities have ranged from MBA style programs offered at university business schools to action learning, high-ropes courses and executive retreats. Developing Individual Leaders Traditionally, leadership development has focused on developing the leadership abilities and attitudes of individuals. Just as people are not all born with the ability or desire to play football (soccer) like Zinedine Zidane or sing like Luciano Pavarotti, people are not all born with the ability to lead. Different personal traits and characteristics can help or hinder a person's leadership effectiveness[1] and require formalized programs for developing leadership competencies [2] Yet everyone can develop their leadership effectiveness. Achieving such development takes focus, practice and persistence more akin to learning a musical instrument than reading a book. Classroom-style training and associated reading is effective in helping leaders to know more about what is involved in leading well. However, knowing what to do and doing what you know are two very different outcomes; management expert Henry Mintzberg is one person to highlight this dilemma. It is estimated that as little as 15% of learning from traditional classroom style training results in sustained behavioral change within the workplace. The success of leadership development efforts has been linked to three variables • Individual learner characteristics • The quality and nature of the leadership development program • Genuine support for behavioral change from the leader's supervisor Military officer training academies, such as the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, go to great lengths to only accept candidates who show the highest potential to lead well. Personal characteristics that are associated with successful leadership development include leader motivation to learn, a high achievement drive and personality traits such as openness to experience, an internal focus of control, and self-monitoring. Development is also more likely to occur when the design of the development program: • Integrates a range of developmental experiences over a set period of time (e.g. 6–12 months). These experiences may include 360 degree feedback, experiential classroom style programs, business school style coursework, executive coaching, reflective journaling, mentoring and more. • Involve goal setting, following an assessment of key developmental needs and then evaluate the achievement of goals after a given time period. Among key concepts in leadership development one may find: • Experiential learning: positioning the individual in the focus of the learning process, going through the four stages of experiential learning as formulated by David A. Kolb: 1. concrete experience 2. observation and reflection 3. forming abstract concept 4. testing in new situations. • Self efficacy: The right training and coaching should bring about 'Self efficacy' in the trainee, as Albert Bandura formulated: A person's belief about his capabilities to produce effects • Visioning: Developing the ability to formulate a clear image of the aspired future of an organization unit. A good personal leadership development program should enable you to develop a plan that helps you gain essential leadership skills required for roles across a wide spectrum from a youth environment to the corporate world. These characteristics include: • Taking responsibility • Gaining focus • Developing life purpose • Starting action immediately • Developing effective and achievable goals and dreams. Developing Leadership at a Collective Level More recently, organizations have come to understand that leadership can also be developed by strengthening the connection between, and alignment of, the efforts of individual leaders and the systems through which they influence organizational operations. This has led to a differentiation between leader development and leadership development.[7] Leader development focuses on the development of the leader, such as the personal attributes desired in a leader, desired ways of behaving, ways of thinking or feeling. In contrast, leadership development focuses on the development of leadership as a process. This will include the interpersonal relationships, social influence process, and the team dynamics between the leader and his/her team at the dyad level, the contextual factors surrounding the team such as the perception of the organizational climate and the social network linkages between the team and other groups in the organization. One practical example of developing leadership specifically so as to influence an organization's safety culture is described by Burman & Evans.[8] Both forms of development may mutually influence each other, as exemplified in the concept of "Deep Change" in Robert E. Quinn [1]'s 1996 book of the same title. Leadership development can build on the development of individuals (including followers) to become leaders. In addition, it also needs to focus on the interpersonal linkages between the individuals in the team. In the belief that the most important resource that an organization possesses is the people that comprise the organization, some organizations address the development of these resources (even including the leadership). In contrast, the concept of "Employeeship" recognizes that what it takes to be a good leader is not too dissimilar to what it takes to be a good employee. Therefore, bringing the notional leader together with the team to explore these similarities (rather than focusing on the differences) brings positive results. This approach has been particularly successful in Sweden where the power distance between manager and team is small. Succession Planning The development of "high potentials" to effectively take over the current leadership when their time comes to exit their positions is known as succession planning. This type of leadership development usually requires the extensive transfer of an individual between departments. In many multinationals, it usually requires international transfer and experience to build a future leader. Succession planning requires a sharp focus on organization's future and vision, in order to align leadership development with the future the firm aspires to create. Thus successive leadership development is based not only on knowledge and history but also on a dream. For such a plan to be successful, a screening of future leadership should be based not only on "what we know and have" but also on "what we aspire to become". Persons involved in succession planning should be current leadership representing the vision and HR executives having to translate it all into a program. According to Meir Jacob and Amit Cohen (1995) three critical dimensions should be considered: 1. Skills and knowledge 2. Role perception and degree of acceptance of leading role 3. Self-efficacy (Albert Bandura). These three dimensions should be a basis of any leadership succession programme. References Cromwell & J. Kolb 2004, “An examination of work-environment support factors affecting transfer of supervisory skills training to the work place”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 449-71. Baldwin, T. & Ford, K. (1988), "Transfer Of Training: A Review And Directions For Future Research', Personnel Psychology, Spring, Vol. 41 Issue 1, p63-105 Organizational Behavior, 4th ed, by Stephen Robbins, Bruce Millet & Terry Waters-Marsh, published by Prentice Hall The Leadership Development Handbook, Center for Creative Leadership; and David V. Day (2000) Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-614. Burman, R. & Evans, A.J. (2008) Target Zero: A Culture of safety, Defence Aviation Safety Centre Journal 2008, 22-27. http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres

religion as a double edged sword; a source for conflict and a resource for peace.

Introduction It is general knowledge world over that all human beings yearn for peace. What is not always very clear, however, is what each person’s interpretation of peace is and how it is understood to be achieved and consolidated. Religion and peace have been almost natural companions in the minds of humans in time and space, and in different cultures of the world. This is simply because, although far too many adherents and leaders of different religions in the world have disrupted peace in society by promoting violence and wars, the vast majority of believers still hold that true religion is a source and guarantor of individual and societal peace. Invariably, religion influences the cultural behaviours and perceptions of individuals and groups, to varying degrees to the extent that people who get involved in violent conflicts often declare that they fight and kill others in defence of their culture and identity, political beliefs and religion. Take a casual glance at the state of the world today and one is almost forgiven for suggesting that, in the last two decades, religion has been at the heart of most violent conflicts. For instance, by taking a glimpse at the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Nigeria and Sri Lanka, one would likely conclude that, indeed, religious differences are the epicentre of these conflicts. As observed by Mohammed Abu-Nimer, since the end of the Cold War, many scholars have argued that most conflicts are driven by clashes of community identity based on race, ethnicity and religious affiliation. Essentially, conflicts based on religion tend to become dogged, tenacious and brutal types of wars, and a threat to the meaning of life. When conflicts are couched in religious terms, in most cases they become transformed into value conflicts. Since time immemorial, some religious contributions to social evolution have been characterised by intolerance, divisiveness and resistance to change. Thus, sometimes religious convictions have become too absolutist, to the extent that compromise has been rendered useless. In such instances, it is all too often a reality that religion has been used as a badge of identity, which is usually employed to fuel or abate conflict for political ends. More so, as a major source of soft power, religion has been used or misused by religions and governmental organisations to pursue their interests, to a greater extent. Yet religion’s ability to inspire violence is intimately related to its equally impressive power as a resource for peace, especially in the growing number of conflicts around the world that involve religious claims and religiously inspired combatants. One strange phenomenon, noted by Scott Appleby, “is that terrorists and peacemakers may grow up in the same community and adhere to the same religious tradition. The killing carried out by one and the reconciliation fostered by the other indicates the range of dramatic and contradictory responses to human suffering by religious actors. Douglas Johnston buttresses this point and concludes that religion is a double-edged sword, in that it has the capacity to cause conflict and abate it. Nevertheless, it remains a tremendous resource for the creation of a just and egalitarian society that the world seeks to achieve. Religion as a Source of Conflict In the contemporary discourse, many of the intractable conflicts appear at least on face value to be driven and/or motivated by religion. Although this may appear to be minimalist in interpretation and analysis, there is a dominant school of thought that traces religion as a source of conflict all the way back to the religious wars that ravaged seventeenth century Europe. Embedded in this polemic is an established fact that religious warfare was and still is a theme that runs throughout human history, notwithstanding that all religious traditions are built around the concept of peace. Arguably, there are some aspects of religion that make it susceptible to being a latent source of conflict. Notably, all religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief, that followers must accept without question. This has, oftentimes, led to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs. After all, if it is the word of God, how can one compromise it? At the same time, scripture and dogma are often vague and open to interpretation. Conflict can, therefore, arise over whose interpretation is the correctone – and this conflict cannot be solved because there is no arbiter. The winner generally is the interpretation that attracts the most followers, who ultimately must also be motivated to action. Although, almost invariably, the majority of people of any faith hold moderate views, they are often more complacent, whereas extremists are motivated to bring their interpretation of God’s will to fruition. Almost inevitably, religious extremists can contribute to conflict escalation. More often than not, they see radical measures as necessary to fulfilling God’s wishes. Fundamentalists of any religion tend to take a Manichean view of the world in that, if the world is a struggle between good and evil, it is hard to justify compromising with the devil. Any sign of moderation, thus, can be decried as selling out, more importantly, of abandoning God’s will. And, of course, religion is a contentious issue. Where eternal salvation is at stake, compromise can be difficult or even sinful. Therefore, as a central part of many individuals’ identity, any threat to one’s beliefs is a threat to one’s very being. This is the primary motivation for ethno-religious nationalists. In virtually every heterogeneous society, religious differences serve as a source of potential conflict. Since individuals are often ignorant of other faiths, there is some potential tension – although it does not usually follow that conflict will result. Although religion is not necessarily conflictual, it serves – as with ethnicity or race – as a way to distinguish one’s self and one’s group from another. Often, the group with less power – be it political or economic – is more aware of the tension than the privileged. When the privileged group is a minority, however – such as the Jews historically were in much of Europe – they are often well aware of the latent conflict. Many religions also have significant strains of evangelism – a phenomenon that has gripped Africa of late – which is potentially conflictual. Believers are called upon to spread the word of God and increase the numbers ‘in the flock’. For example, the effort to impose Christianity on people was an important part of the conflict surrounding European colonisation. Similarly, a group may seek to deny other religions the opportunity to practise their faith – the suppression of Christianity in China and Sudan being two contemporary examples. Looking at religion as a resource for peace some scholars have advanced various ideas in support of the same. For instance in proposing his concept of the ambivalence of the sacred, Appleby makes a critical contribution to the understanding of the way religion reinforces the human psychological construct, where we are all capable of love and creativity but also hatred and destructiveness. Although the great world religions vary widely in their substantive differences, as Appleby says, “One can trace a moral trajectory challenging adherents to greater acts of compassion, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Sadly though, a scan through most of the literature on religion in the contemporary world relates to the negative aspects of religion and its contribution to instability across the globe. What many scholars have often overlooked is the positive role that religion plays in preventing and resolving conflict. Religion has the capacity to bring parties together, based on the increased trust that it can introduce in certain situations. Certainly in the case of Mozambique, the religious group Community of Sant’Egidio played a cardinal role in resolving an intractable conflict between the two feuding parties, Frente de Liberação de Moçambique (FRELIMO) and Resistência Nacional Moçambicana (RENAMO). There are many other such examples in the world where religion and religious bodies were responsible for building trust between protagonists in conflict. Although the peacemaking potential of religion is still a debatable issue – more particularly in Western policymaking circles – it has (in other parts of the world) been central as a defining element of national security and, hence, is far too important to be marginalised. In many conflicts, it would be important to understand the religious dynamics at play, if any, so as to deal effectively with their confrontational aspects – orperhaps most importantly, to capitalise effectively on their harmonising elements. To unpack this dichotomous polemic, a few questions would help direct the discourse. If this is the dilemma that confronts religion, how have the institutions and actors transcended this problem? How have they been able to contribute meaningfully to conflict resolution and peacebuilding? What tools have they employed to achieve this seemingly monumentous task? These are questions that require careful interrogation in the discourse on religion and its potential to build lasting peace. In the latter half of the 1990s, one of the favoured discussions in the peace discourse was the reflection on the role and importance of civil society in the area of conflict prevention and transformation. Comparative advantages and challenges were noted and it was argued that a new culture of peace needed to be established, encompassing a broad-based alliance of government actors, international organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other civil society organisations (CSOs). A decade later, the centrality of CSOs in the field of conflict prevention and transformation is no longer a matter of principled discussion but the locus of most successful peacebuilding initiatives. In the same vein, religious institutions working in the area of peace have since grown, with a greater percentage of them extending their mandate from relief and development to peace and conflict resolution. As Cynthia Sampson acknowledges, although the religious sector’s contribution was largely unknown, it has become the most expanding in the field of international conflict analysis and transformation in the contemporary world. She observed that: “What for decades was the untold, unnoticed story behind the news, the undocumented history of religiously motivated peacemaking and reconciliation efforts – has now begun to grab the attention of scholars, journalists, diplomats, various governmental and non-governmental agencies, and funding organisations as these efforts have become more numerous, more visible and more needed. In a greater percentage of the conflicts that ravaged Africa after the Cold War, civil society, NGOs, inter-governmental organisations, the church and other religious institutions have continued to play a critical role in resolving conflicts and building peace. A plethora of examples are quite evident throughout the length and breadth of the African continent from the world-acclaimed roles played by the Community of Sant’Egidio in Mozambique; the Council of Churches in South Africa; the Catholic Church in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Zambia, Burundi and Rwanda; the Acholi Religious Forum in Northern Uganda; Christian–Muslim Dialogue in Nigeria; and the Community of Sant’Egidio in Algeria. These examples indicate that civil society – particularly religious institutions – have continued to play a fundamental role in ending hostilities on the continent, cementing the argument that religion is indeed a resource for peace. Conclusion Although religion can be referred to a double-edged sword, the various religious doctrines are premised on peace. In many of the intractable conflicts around the globe, religion has continued to play a pivotal role in the resolution of these disputes. The role of religious leaders in creating spaces for interfaith and inter-religious dialogue cannot be overemphasised in this regard. Hence, the creation of an environment where genuine debate is possible is important. Extremist rhetoric clearly flourishes best in an environment not conductive to rational deliberation. Needless to say, extremist rhetoric is very difficult to maintain in a discursive environment in which positions taken or accusations made can be challenged directly by rebuttal, counter-propositions, cross-examinations and the presentation of evidence. Without a change in the environment of public discourse within and between religious organisations, demagogy and rhetorical intolerance will prevail. Key to this observation is the erasure of ignorance, which is fertile ground for intolerance and extremism. REFERENCES Abu-Nimer, M. (2000): Conflict Resolution, Culture and Religion: Toward a Training Model of Interreligious Peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 685–704. 3 Ibid. Reychler, Luc (1997): Religion and Conflict. The International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1. Appleby, R. Scott (2000) The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion,Violence and Reconciliation. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.. Van Tongeren, Paul et al. (2005) People Building Peace II: Successful Stories of Civil Society. Boulder, London: Lynne Reinner. Sampson, Cynthia (1997): Religion and Peacebuilding. In Zartman, I. William and Rasmussen. www. globalcrisis.info/peace_negotiation.html/11/09/2012 www.worldpeacefestival.org/11/09/2012

Conflict resolution

Conflict resolution Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict. Often, committed group members attempt to resolve group conflicts by actively communicating information about their conflicting motives or ideologies to the rest of the group (e.g., intentions; reasons for holding certain beliefs), and by engaging in collective negotiation. Ultimately, a wide range of methods and procedures for addressing conflict exist, including but not limited to, negotiation, mediation, diplomacy, and creative peace building. It may be important to note that the term conflict resolution may also be used interchangeably with dispute resolution, where arbitration and litigation processes are critically involved. Furthermore, the concept of conflict resolution can be thought to encompass the use of nonviolent resistance measures by conflicted parties in an attempt to promote effective resolution Theories and models Dual concern model of conflict resolution The dual concern model of conflict resolution is a conceptual perspective that assumes individuals’ preferred method of dealing with conflict is based on two underlying themes or dimensions. 1. A concern for self (i.e. assertiveness), and 2. A concern for others (i.e. empathy). According to the model, group members balance their concern for satisfying personal needs and interests with their concern for satisfying the needs and interests of others in different ways. The intersection point between these two dimensions ultimately lead individuals towards exhibiting different styles of conflict resolution (Goldfien & Robbennolt, 2007). The dual model identifies five conflict resolution styles/strategies that individuals may use depending on their dispositions toward pro-self or pro-social goals. 1. Avoidance conflict style Characterized by inaction and passivity, avoidance conflict style is typically used when an individual has reduced concern for their own outcomes as well as the outcomes of others. During conflict, these avoiders adopt a “wait and see” attitude, often allowing conflict to phase out on its own without any personal involvement (Bayazit & Mannix, 2003). Unfortunately, by neglecting to address high-conflict situations, avoiders risk allowing problems to fester out of control. 2. Yielding conflict style In contrast, yielding or “accommodating” conflict styles are characterized by a high concern for others while having a low concern for one’s own self. This passive pro-social approach emerges when individuals derive personal satisfaction from meeting the needs of others and have a general concern for maintaining stable, positive social relationships. When faced with conflict, individuals with a yielding conflict style tend to give into others’ demands out of respect for the social relationship (e.g., to maintain group unity) because they believe being “agreeable may be more important than winning” (Goldfien & Robbennolt, 2007). 3. Competitive conflict style Competitive or “fighting” conflict style maximizes individual assertiveness (i.e., concern for self) and minimizes empathy (i.e., concern for others). Groups consisting of competitive members generally enjoy seeking domination over others, and typically see conflict as a “win or lose” predicament. Fighters tend to force others to accept their personal views by employing competitive, power tactics (e.g., argue; insult; accuse; violence) that foster feelings of intimidation (Morrill, 1995). 4. Cooperation conflict style Characterized by an active concern for both pro-social and pro-self behavior, cooperation conflict style is typically used when an individual has elevated interests in their own outcomes as well as in the outcomes of others. During conflict, cooperators collaborate with others in an effort to find an amicable solution that satisfies all parties involved in the conflict. Individuals with this type of conflict style tend to be highly assertive and highly empathetic at the same time. By seeing conflict as a creative opportunity, collaborators willingly invest time and resources into finding a “win-win” solution. According to the literature on conflict resolution, a cooperative conflict resolution style is recommended above all others (Sternberg & Dobson, 1987; Jarboe & Witteman, 1996) 5. Conciliation conflict style Conciliation or “compromising” conflict style is typical of individuals who possess an intermediate-level of concern for both personal and others’ outcomes. Compromisers value fairness and, in doing so, anticipate mutual give-and-take interactions. By accepting some demands put forth by others, compromisers believe this agreeableness will encourage others to meet half-way, thus promoting conflict resolution (van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994). This conflict style can be considered an extension of both “yielding” and “cooperative” strategies. Culture-based Conflict resolution as both a professional practice and academic field is highly sensitive to culture. In Western cultural contexts, such as Canada and the United States, successful conflict resolution usually involves fostering communication among disputants, problem solving, and drafting agreements that meet their underlying needs. In these situations, conflict resolvers often talk about finding the win-win solution, or mutually satisfying scenario, for everyone involved (see Fisher and Ury (1981), Getting to Yes). In many non-Western cultural contexts, such as Afghanistan, Vietnam, and China, it is also important to find "win-win" solutions; however, getting there can be very different. In these contexts, direct communication between disputants that explicitly addresses the issues at stake in the conflict can be perceived as very rude, making the conflict worse and delaying resolution. Rather, it can make sense to involve religious, tribal or community leaders, communicate difficult truths indirectly through a third party, and make suggestions through stories (see Vinod Swami (1992), Conflict Mediation Across Cultures). Intercultural conflicts are often the most difficult to resolve because the expectations of the disputants can be very different, and there is much occasion for misunderstanding. In animals Conflict resolution has also been studied in non-humans, like dogs, cats, monkeys, snakes, elephants, and primates (see Frans de Waal, 2000). Aggression is more common among relatives and within a group than between groups. Instead of creating a distance between the individuals, however, the primates were more intimate in the period after the aggressive incident. These intimacies consisted of grooming and various forms of body contact. Stress responses, like an increased heart rate, usually decrease after these reconciliatory signals. Different types of primates, as well as many other species who are living in groups, show different types of conciliatory behaviour. Resolving conflicts that threaten the interaction between individuals in a group is necessary for survival and hence has a strong evolutionary value. These findings contradicted previous existing theories about the general function of aggression, i.e. creating space between individuals (first proposed by Konrad Lorenz), which seems to be more the case in conflicts between groups than it is within groups. In addition to research in primates, biologists are beginning to explore reconciliation in other animals. Until recently, the literature dealing with reconciliation in non-primates have consisted of anecdotal observations and very little quantitative data. Although peaceful post-conflict behavior had been documented going back to the 1960s, it wasn’t until 1993 that Rowell made the first explicit mention of reconciliation in feral sheep. Reconciliation has since been documented in spotted hyenas,[8][9] lions, dolphins,[10] dwarf mongoose, domestic goats, and domestic dogs. Conflict resolution is an expanding field of professional practice, both in the U.S. and around the world. The escalating costs of conflict have increased use of third parties who may serve as a conflict specialists to resolve conflicts. In fact relief and development organizations have added peace-building specialists to their teams. Many of the major international non-governmental organizations have seen a growing need to hire practitioners trained in conflict analysis and resolution. Furthermore, this expansion of the field has resulted in the need for conflict resolution practitioners to work in a variety of settings such as in businesses, court systems, government agencies nonprofit organizations, government agencies and educational institutions serving throughout the world. Education Universities worldwide offer programs of study pertaining to conflict research, analysis, and practice. The Cornell University ILR School houses the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, which offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional training on conflict resolution. Eastern Mennonite University's Center for Justice and Peacebuilding offers a BA and MA with a focus on practical applications in conflict-affected communities and regions. Additional graduate programs are offered at Georgetown University, and Trinity College Dublin. George Mason University’s Institute of Conflict Analysis and Resolution offers undergraduate, certificate and masters programs in Conflict Analysis and Resolution and a Ph.D. program in The Philosophy in Conflict and Conflict Resolution. Nova Southeastern University offers a Ph.D. in Conflict Analysis & Resolution which trains students in the skills and techniques of practice, interdisciplinary research, policy and program development, historical critique, cultural analysis, and theoretical foundations of the field. It is offered in both online and on-campus formats. Many students completing a doctoral program enter the field as researchers, theorists, analysts, policy makers and professors in higher education. Furthermore, the Pax Ludens Foundation based in the Netherlands is an organization that puts together conflict resolution simulations set in an International Relations scenario to help students learn about the intricacies of where conflict emerges in the world of international politics. Conflict resolution is a growing area of interest in UK pedagogy, with teachers and students both encouraged to learn about mechanisms that lead to aggressive action, and those that lead to peaceful resolution. Tel Aviv University offers two graduate degree programs in the field of conflict resolution, including the English-language International Program in Conflict Resolution and Mediation, affording students to learn in a region which is the subject of much research on international conflict resolution. Conflict management Conflict management refers to the long-term management of intractable conflicts. It is the label for the variety of ways by which people handle grievances—standing up for what they consider to be right and against what they consider to be wrong. Those ways include such diverse phenomena as gossip, ridicule, lynching, terrorism, warfare, feuding, genocide, law, mediation, and avoidance. Which forms of conflict management will be used in any given situation can be somewhat predicted and explained by the social structure—or social geometry—of the case. Conflict management is often considered to be distinct from conflict resolution. In order for actual conflict to occur, there should be an expression of exclusive patterns, and tell why the conflict was expressed the way it was. Conflict is not just about simple inaptness, but is often connected to a previous issue. The latter refers to resolving the dispute to the approval of one or both parties, whereas the former concerns an ongoing process that may never have a resolution. Neither is it considered the same as conflict transformation, which seeks to reframe the positions of the conflict parties. Counseling When personal conflict leads to frustration and loss of efficiency, counseling may prove to be a helpful antidote. Although few organizations can afford the luxury of having professional counselors on the staff, given some training, managers may be able to perform this function. Nondirective counseling, or "listening with understanding", is little more than being a good listener—something every manager should be. Sometimes the simple process of being able to vent one's feelings—that is, to express them to a concerned and understanding listener, is enough to relieve frustration and make it possible for the frustrated individual to advance to a problem-solving frame of mind, better able to cope with a personal difficulty that is affecting his work adversely. The nondirective approach is one effective way for managers to deal with frustrated subordinates and coworkers. There are other more direct and more diagnostic ways that might be used in appropriate circumstances. The great strength of the nondirective approach (nondirective counseling is based on the client-centered therapy of Carl Rogers), however, lies in its simplicity, its effectiveness, and the fact that it deliberately avoids the manager-counselor's diagnosing and interpreting emotional problems, which would call for special psychological training. Listening to staff with sympathy and understanding is unlikely to escalate the problem, and is a widely used approach for helping people to cope with problems that interfere with their effectiveness in their place of work. REFERENCES Augsburger, D. (1992). Conflict mediation across cultures. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster / John Knox Press. Bannon, I. & Paul Collier (Eds.). (2003). Natural resources and violent conflict: Options and actions. Washington, D.C: The World Bank. Ury, F. & Rodger Fisher. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, NY: Penguin Group. Wilmot,W. & Jouyce Hocker. (2007). Interpersonal conflict. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies. Bercovitch, Jacob and Jackson, Richard. 2009. Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century: Principles, Methods, and Approaches. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Waal, Frans B. M. and Angeline van Roosmalen. 1979. Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 5: 55–66. de Waal, Frans B. M. 1989. Peacemaking Among Primates. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Judge, Peter G. and Frans B. M. de Waal. 1993. Conflict avoidance among rhesus monkeys: coping with short-term crowding. Animal Behaviour 46: 221–232.

DISCUSS THE VARIOUS TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES OF NEGOTIATION WITH AIM OF OBTAINING LONG TERM PEACE.

INTRODUCTION Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests of two people/parties involved in negotiation process. Negotiation is a process where each party involved in negotiating tries to gain an advantage for themselves by the end of the process. Negotiation is intended to aim at compromise. Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, and government branches, legal proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, and everyday life. No technique or negotiation trick can replace the value of proper preparation and planning for the delegation’s negotiation. Knowing as much as the delegation can about the other parties to the negotiation and their interests is essential to achieving a favorable outcome. The delegation must fully understand the delegation’s goals and interests and develop an understanding of what the other parties think the delegation’s goals and interests are. During the course of the negotiation the delegation should strive to update the delegation’s information about the other parties, their interests and goals, and what they perceive as the delegation’s interests. This can be accomplished by applying the under mentioned tactic and techniques; First of all encouraging dialogue between the negotiating parties by asking open-ended questions as these encourage the other side to provide unsolicited information to you. Use open-ended questions instead of "why" questions, which could imply interrogation. If you do most of the talking, you decrease the opportunities to learn about other person. Effective open-ended questions include, "Can you tell me more about that?" "I did not understand what you just said; could you help me better understand by explaining that further?" and, "Could you tell me more about what happened to you today?" Secondly promote active listening as you focus on the speaker and what is being said. Respond to the speaker’s views; do not rely exclusively on prepared remarks. Use body language to encourage the speaker and signal interest. Examples include leaning into the speaker, nodding and occasionally orally expressing understanding. Do not interrupt, let the speaker finish. Ask non-threatening questions to confirm the delegation’s understanding. Thirdly you need to apply the tactic of eye contact. Here maintain eye contact with the other parties as it shows the delegation is paying attention and listening to them. Caution should be taken here as far as cultural differences in which eye contact may be inappropriate or may even send the wrong message. Further more showing interest in whatever you are negotiating about is very crucial because this proves that you are listening by using body language or brief verbal replies that show interest and concern. Simple phrases such as "yes," "OK" or "I see" effectively show you are paying attention. This encourages the other person to continue talking and relinquish more control of the situation to the negotiator. More so paraphrasing is another way of telling the other party in the negotiation process what you heard them say, either quoting them or summarizing what they said. Additionally is the factor of emotion labeling. This means attaching a tentative label to the feelings expressed or implied by other person's words and actions. This shows you are paying attention to the emotional aspects of what other person is conveying. When used effectively, emotion labeling is one of the most powerful skills available to negotiators because it helps identify the issues and feelings driving the other person's behavior. Another essential tactic in negotiation is mirroring which refers to repeating the last words or main idea of other person's message. This indicates interest and understanding. For example, a subject may say, "I'm sick and tired of being pushed around," to which a negotiator can respond, "Feel pushed, huh?" Mirroring can be especially helpful in the early stages of a crisis, as negotiators attempt to establish a non-confrontational presence, gain initial intelligence and build rapport. In negotiation, negotiators have to avoid being provoking when they express how they feel about certain things the other person says or does. Using "I" statements lets you ostensibly shed the negotiator role and react to the subject as just another person. For instance, you might say, "We have been talking for several hours, and I feel frustrated that we have not been able to come to an agreement." This is also an effective tactic if the other person verbally attacks, because it lets you respond with, "I feel frustrated when you scream at me, because I'm trying to help you." Remember never to get pulled into an argument or trade personal attacks with the other party as this might hamper the peace process. Effective pauses also constitute a tactic to negotiation. Any good interviewer knows the power of the long, awkward silence. People tend to speak to fill spaces in a conversation. Therefore, you should, on occasion, consciously create a space or void that will encourage the other person to speak and, in the process, provide additional information. Further still documents play an important role in negotiations. Negotiations are typically managed through the use of various documents, including agendas, position papers and settlement agreements. Documents are also useful to both persuade and illustrate your delegation’s position, which may include photographs. Finally the use of experts can be useful in negotiations involving complex or technical issues. There are two distinct ways to effectively use experts in negotiations. Use an expert that is not perceived to be affiliated with any party to provide persuasive arguments and solutions for complex issues. For such an expert to be effective all parties must have confidence in the expert’s neutrality and in the usefulness of such expert’s opinions. Such an expert will be more effective if perceived by the other parties to be neutral. Your delegation should recognize that no expert is truly neutral. However sometimes parties will use unethical or unpleasant tricks in an attempt to gain an advantage in negotiations such as good guy/bad guy routines, uncomfortable seating, and leaks to the media. The best way to respond to such tricky tactics is to explicitly raise the issue in negotiations, and to engage in principled negotiation to establish procedural ground rules for the negotiation. Fisher and Ury (1981) identify the general types of tricky tactics. Parties may engage in deliberate deception about the facts, their authority, or their intentions. The best way to protect against being deceived is to seek verification the other side's claims. It may help to ask them for further clarification of a claim, or to put the claim in writing. However, in doing this it is very important not to bee seen as calling the other party a liar; that is, as making a personal attack. Another common type of tactic is psychological warfare. When the tricky party uses a stressful environment, the principled party should identify the problematic element and suggest a more comfortable or fair change. Subtle personal attacks can be made less effective simply be recognizing them for what they are. Explicitly identifying them to the offending party will often put an end to suck attacks. Threats are a way to apply psychological pressure. The principled negotiator should ignore them where possible, or undertake principled negotiations on the use of threats in the proceedings. The last class of trick tactics are positional pressure tactics which attempt to structure negotiations so that only one side can make concessions. The tricky side may refuse to negotiate, hoping to use their entry into negotiations as a bargaining chip, or they may open with extreme demands. The principled negotiator should recognize this as a bargaining tactic, and look into their interests in refusing to negotiate. They may escalate their demands for every concession they make. The principled negotiator should explicitly identify this tactic to the participants, and give the parties a chance to consider whether they want to continue negotiations under such conditions. Parties may try to make irrevocable commitments to certain positions, or to make-take-it-or-leave-it offers. The principled party may decline to recognize the commitment or the finality of the offer, instead treating them as proposals or expressed interests. Insist that any proposals be evaluated on their merits, and do not hesitate to point out dirty tricks. Conclusively, negotiation aims mainly at getting the parties together, identifying key issues, distinguishing rational from emotional objectives, preparing the agenda and negotiating the peace agreement, are all key functions of peacemaking. Players in negotiations should strictly observe tactic and techniques of negotiation to achieve ever lasting peace for the good of our society. REFERENCES Ury, F. & Fisher. R (1981): Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, NY: Penguin Group. Waal, F.( 1979): Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

DISCUSS THE VARIOUS TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES OF NEGOTIATION WITH AIM OF OBTAINING LONG TERM PEACE.

INTRODUCTION Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests of two people/parties involved in negotiation process. Negotiation is a process where each party involved in negotiating tries to gain an advantage for themselves by the end of the process. Negotiation is intended to aim at compromise. Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, and government branches, legal proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, and everyday life. No technique or negotiation trick can replace the value of proper preparation and planning for the delegation’s negotiation. Knowing as much as the delegation can about the other parties to the negotiation and their interests is essential to achieving a favorable outcome. The delegation must fully understand the delegation’s goals and interests and develop an understanding of what the other parties think the delegation’s goals and interests are. During the course of the negotiation the delegation should strive to update the delegation’s information about the other parties, their interests and goals, and what they perceive as the delegation’s interests. This can be accomplished by applying the under mentioned tactic and techniques; First of all encouraging dialogue between the negotiating parties by asking open-ended questions as these encourage the other side to provide unsolicited information to you. Use open-ended questions instead of "why" questions, which could imply interrogation. If you do most of the talking, you decrease the opportunities to learn about other person. Effective open-ended questions include, "Can you tell me more about that?" "I did not understand what you just said; could you help me better understand by explaining that further?" and, "Could you tell me more about what happened to you today?" Secondly promote active listening as you focus on the speaker and what is being said. Respond to the speaker’s views; do not rely exclusively on prepared remarks. Use body language to encourage the speaker and signal interest. Examples include leaning into the speaker, nodding and occasionally orally expressing understanding. Do not interrupt, let the speaker finish. Ask non-threatening questions to confirm the delegation’s understanding. Thirdly you need to apply the tactic of eye contact. Here maintain eye contact with the other parties as it shows the delegation is paying attention and listening to them. Caution should be taken here as far as cultural differences in which eye contact may be inappropriate or may even send the wrong message. Further more showing interest in whatever you are negotiating about is very crucial because this proves that you are listening by using body language or brief verbal replies that show interest and concern. Simple phrases such as "yes," "OK" or "I see" effectively show you are paying attention. This encourages the other person to continue talking and relinquish more control of the situation to the negotiator. More so paraphrasing is another way of telling the other party in the negotiation process what you heard them say, either quoting them or summarizing what they said. Additionally is the factor of emotion labeling. This means attaching a tentative label to the feelings expressed or implied by other person's words and actions. This shows you are paying attention to the emotional aspects of what other person is conveying. When used effectively, emotion labeling is one of the most powerful skills available to negotiators because it helps identify the issues and feelings driving the other person's behavior. Another essential tactic in negotiation is mirroring which refers to repeating the last words or main idea of other person's message. This indicates interest and understanding. For example, a subject may say, "I'm sick and tired of being pushed around," to which a negotiator can respond, "Feel pushed, huh?" Mirroring can be especially helpful in the early stages of a crisis, as negotiators attempt to establish a non-confrontational presence, gain initial intelligence and build rapport. In negotiation, negotiators have to avoid being provoking when they express how they feel about certain things the other person says or does. Using "I" statements lets you ostensibly shed the negotiator role and react to the subject as just another person. For instance, you might say, "We have been talking for several hours, and I feel frustrated that we have not been able to come to an agreement." This is also an effective tactic if the other person verbally attacks, because it lets you respond with, "I feel frustrated when you scream at me, because I'm trying to help you." Remember never to get pulled into an argument or trade personal attacks with the other party as this might hamper the peace process. Effective pauses also constitute a tactic to negotiation. Any good interviewer knows the power of the long, awkward silence. People tend to speak to fill spaces in a conversation. Therefore, you should, on occasion, consciously create a space or void that will encourage the other person to speak and, in the process, provide additional information. Further still documents play an important role in negotiations. Negotiations are typically managed through the use of various documents, including agendas, position papers and settlement agreements. Documents are also useful to both persuade and illustrate your delegation’s position, which may include photographs. Finally the use of experts can be useful in negotiations involving complex or technical issues. There are two distinct ways to effectively use experts in negotiations. Use an expert that is not perceived to be affiliated with any party to provide persuasive arguments and solutions for complex issues. For such an expert to be effective all parties must have confidence in the expert’s neutrality and in the usefulness of such expert’s opinions. Such an expert will be more effective if perceived by the other parties to be neutral. Your delegation should recognize that no expert is truly neutral. However sometimes parties will use unethical or unpleasant tricks in an attempt to gain an advantage in negotiations such as good guy/bad guy routines, uncomfortable seating, and leaks to the media. The best way to respond to such tricky tactics is to explicitly raise the issue in negotiations, and to engage in principled negotiation to establish procedural ground rules for the negotiation. Fisher and Ury (1981) identify the general types of tricky tactics. Parties may engage in deliberate deception about the facts, their authority, or their intentions. The best way to protect against being deceived is to seek verification the other side's claims. It may help to ask them for further clarification of a claim, or to put the claim in writing. However, in doing this it is very important not to bee seen as calling the other party a liar; that is, as making a personal attack. Another common type of tactic is psychological warfare. When the tricky party uses a stressful environment, the principled party should identify the problematic element and suggest a more comfortable or fair change. Subtle personal attacks can be made less effective simply be recognizing them for what they are. Explicitly identifying them to the offending party will often put an end to suck attacks. Threats are a way to apply psychological pressure. The principled negotiator should ignore them where possible, or undertake principled negotiations on the use of threats in the proceedings. The last class of trick tactics are positional pressure tactics which attempt to structure negotiations so that only one side can make concessions. The tricky side may refuse to negotiate, hoping to use their entry into negotiations as a bargaining chip, or they may open with extreme demands. The principled negotiator should recognize this as a bargaining tactic, and look into their interests in refusing to negotiate. They may escalate their demands for every concession they make. The principled negotiator should explicitly identify this tactic to the participants, and give the parties a chance to consider whether they want to continue negotiations under such conditions. Parties may try to make irrevocable commitments to certain positions, or to make-take-it-or-leave-it offers. The principled party may decline to recognize the commitment or the finality of the offer, instead treating them as proposals or expressed interests. Insist that any proposals be evaluated on their merits, and do not hesitate to point out dirty tricks. Conclusively, negotiation aims mainly at getting the parties together, identifying key issues, distinguishing rational from emotional objectives, preparing the agenda and negotiating the peace agreement, are all key functions of peacemaking. Players in negotiations should strictly observe tactic and techniques of negotiation to achieve ever lasting peace for the good of our society. REFERENCES Ury, F. & Fisher. R (1981): Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, NY: Penguin Group. Waal, F.( 1979): Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

DISCUSS THE VARIOUS TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES OF NEGOTIATION WITH AIM OF OBTAINING LONG TERM PEACE.

INTRODUCTION Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests of two people/parties involved in negotiation process. Negotiation is a process where each party involved in negotiating tries to gain an advantage for themselves by the end of the process. Negotiation is intended to aim at compromise. Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, and government branches, legal proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, and everyday life. No technique or negotiation trick can replace the value of proper preparation and planning for the delegation’s negotiation. Knowing as much as the delegation can about the other parties to the negotiation and their interests is essential to achieving a favorable outcome. The delegation must fully understand the delegation’s goals and interests and develop an understanding of what the other parties think the delegation’s goals and interests are. During the course of the negotiation the delegation should strive to update the delegation’s information about the other parties, their interests and goals, and what they perceive as the delegation’s interests. This can be accomplished by applying the under mentioned tactic and techniques; First of all encouraging dialogue between the negotiating parties by asking open-ended questions as these encourage the other side to provide unsolicited information to you. Use open-ended questions instead of "why" questions, which could imply interrogation. If you do most of the talking, you decrease the opportunities to learn about other person. Effective open-ended questions include, "Can you tell me more about that?" "I did not understand what you just said; could you help me better understand by explaining that further?" and, "Could you tell me more about what happened to you today?" Secondly promote active listening as you focus on the speaker and what is being said. Respond to the speaker’s views; do not rely exclusively on prepared remarks. Use body language to encourage the speaker and signal interest. Examples include leaning into the speaker, nodding and occasionally orally expressing understanding. Do not interrupt, let the speaker finish. Ask non-threatening questions to confirm the delegation’s understanding. Thirdly you need to apply the tactic of eye contact. Here maintain eye contact with the other parties as it shows the delegation is paying attention and listening to them. Caution should be taken here as far as cultural differences in which eye contact may be inappropriate or may even send the wrong message. Further more showing interest in whatever you are negotiating about is very crucial because this proves that you are listening by using body language or brief verbal replies that show interest and concern. Simple phrases such as "yes," "OK" or "I see" effectively show you are paying attention. This encourages the other person to continue talking and relinquish more control of the situation to the negotiator. More so paraphrasing is another way of telling the other party in the negotiation process what you heard them say, either quoting them or summarizing what they said. Additionally is the factor of emotion labeling. This means attaching a tentative label to the feelings expressed or implied by other person's words and actions. This shows you are paying attention to the emotional aspects of what other person is conveying. When used effectively, emotion labeling is one of the most powerful skills available to negotiators because it helps identify the issues and feelings driving the other person's behavior. Another essential tactic in negotiation is mirroring which refers to repeating the last words or main idea of other person's message. This indicates interest and understanding. For example, a subject may say, "I'm sick and tired of being pushed around," to which a negotiator can respond, "Feel pushed, huh?" Mirroring can be especially helpful in the early stages of a crisis, as negotiators attempt to establish a non-confrontational presence, gain initial intelligence and build rapport. In negotiation, negotiators have to avoid being provoking when they express how they feel about certain things the other person says or does. Using "I" statements lets you ostensibly shed the negotiator role and react to the subject as just another person. For instance, you might say, "We have been talking for several hours, and I feel frustrated that we have not been able to come to an agreement." This is also an effective tactic if the other person verbally attacks, because it lets you respond with, "I feel frustrated when you scream at me, because I'm trying to help you." Remember never to get pulled into an argument or trade personal attacks with the other party as this might hamper the peace process. Effective pauses also constitute a tactic to negotiation. Any good interviewer knows the power of the long, awkward silence. People tend to speak to fill spaces in a conversation. Therefore, you should, on occasion, consciously create a space or void that will encourage the other person to speak and, in the process, provide additional information. Further still documents play an important role in negotiations. Negotiations are typically managed through the use of various documents, including agendas, position papers and settlement agreements. Documents are also useful to both persuade and illustrate your delegation’s position, which may include photographs. Finally the use of experts can be useful in negotiations involving complex or technical issues. There are two distinct ways to effectively use experts in negotiations. Use an expert that is not perceived to be affiliated with any party to provide persuasive arguments and solutions for complex issues. For such an expert to be effective all parties must have confidence in the expert’s neutrality and in the usefulness of such expert’s opinions. Such an expert will be more effective if perceived by the other parties to be neutral. Your delegation should recognize that no expert is truly neutral. However sometimes parties will use unethical or unpleasant tricks in an attempt to gain an advantage in negotiations such as good guy/bad guy routines, uncomfortable seating, and leaks to the media. The best way to respond to such tricky tactics is to explicitly raise the issue in negotiations, and to engage in principled negotiation to establish procedural ground rules for the negotiation. Fisher and Ury (1981) identify the general types of tricky tactics. Parties may engage in deliberate deception about the facts, their authority, or their intentions. The best way to protect against being deceived is to seek verification the other side's claims. It may help to ask them for further clarification of a claim, or to put the claim in writing. However, in doing this it is very important not to bee seen as calling the other party a liar; that is, as making a personal attack. Another common type of tactic is psychological warfare. When the tricky party uses a stressful environment, the principled party should identify the problematic element and suggest a more comfortable or fair change. Subtle personal attacks can be made less effective simply be recognizing them for what they are. Explicitly identifying them to the offending party will often put an end to suck attacks. Threats are a way to apply psychological pressure. The principled negotiator should ignore them where possible, or undertake principled negotiations on the use of threats in the proceedings. The last class of trick tactics are positional pressure tactics which attempt to structure negotiations so that only one side can make concessions. The tricky side may refuse to negotiate, hoping to use their entry into negotiations as a bargaining chip, or they may open with extreme demands. The principled negotiator should recognize this as a bargaining tactic, and look into their interests in refusing to negotiate. They may escalate their demands for every concession they make. The principled negotiator should explicitly identify this tactic to the participants, and give the parties a chance to consider whether they want to continue negotiations under such conditions. Parties may try to make irrevocable commitments to certain positions, or to make-take-it-or-leave-it offers. The principled party may decline to recognize the commitment or the finality of the offer, instead treating them as proposals or expressed interests. Insist that any proposals be evaluated on their merits, and do not hesitate to point out dirty tricks. Conclusively, negotiation aims mainly at getting the parties together, identifying key issues, distinguishing rational from emotional objectives, preparing the agenda and negotiating the peace agreement, are all key functions of peacemaking. Players in negotiations should strictly observe tactic and techniques of negotiation to achieve ever lasting peace for the good of our society. REFERENCES Ury, F. & Fisher. R (1981): Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, NY: Penguin Group. Waal, F.( 1979): Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

Evapotranspiration and Evaporation

Evapotranspiration (ET) is the sum of evaporation and plant transpiration from the Earth's land surface to atmosphere. Evaporation accounts for the movement of water to the air from sources such as the soil, canopy interception, and waterbodies. Transpiration accounts for the movement of water within a plant and the subsequent loss of water as vapor through stomata in its leaves. Evapotranspiration is an important part of the water cycle. An element (such as a tree) that contributes to evapotranspiration can be called an evapotranspirator. Potential evapotranspiration (PET) is a representation of the environmental demand for evapotranspiration and represents the evapotranspiration rate of a short green crop, completely shading the ground, of uniform height and with adequate water status in the soil profile. It is a reflection of the energy available to evaporate water, and of the wind available to transport the water vapour from the ground up into the lower atmosphere. Actual evapotranspiration is said to equal potential evapotranspiration when there is ample water. Evapotranspiration and Evaporation relation to agriculture How does this relate to agriculture? Figure B Image from Bridget Lassiter If you can predict evapotranspiration rates, you will be able to estimate the water demands of the crop. This may help you to determine whether or not to irrigate, for example. If crops do not receive enough water, their leaves may curl and their production decline as the plants fight to conserve what water they can. Knowledge of predicted temperature and wind conditions from weather forecasts can give you a clue to how strong the evapotranspiration rates will be. Evaporation may also directly affect soil moisture conditions. If there is too much moisture in the soil, the farm machinery can get bogged down because it has to work too hard. The weight of the machinery can also compact the wet soil, leading to lack of air for healthy root systems to develop. If the soil is too dry, however, the plants may be easily stressed due to the lack of available water and a crust may sometimes form on top of the soil. This crust may be so impermeable that when it rains on top of the crusty soil, the rain runs right off rather than soaking in. SIGNIFICANCE OF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION Apart from precipitation, the most significant component of the hydrologic budget is evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration varies regionally and seasonally; during a drought it varies according to weather and wind conditions. Because of these variabilities, water managers who are responsible for planning and adjudicating the distribution of water resources need to have a thorough understanding of the evapotranspiration process and knowledge about the spatial and temporal rates of evapotranspiration. Estimates of average statewide evapotranspiration for the conterminous United States range from about 40 percent of the average annual precipitation in the Northwest and Northeast to about 100 percent in the Southwest. During a drought, the significance of evapotranspiration is magnified, because evapotranspiration continues to deplete the limited remaining water supplies in lakes and streams and the soil. The lower 5 miles of the atmosphere transports an average of about 40,000 billion gallons of water vapor over the conterminous United States each day (U.S. Geological Survey, 1984). Slightly more than 10 percent of this moisture, however, is precipitated as rain, sleet, hail, or snow. The disposition of this precipitation in the conterminous United States is illustrated in figure 1. Figure 1. Average disposition of 4200 billion gallons per day of precipitation in the conterminous United States. (source: Data from U.S. Geological Survey, 1990). As shown, the greatest proportion, about 67 percent, returns to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration, about 29 percent is discharged from the conterminous United States as net surface-water outflow into the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and across the borders into Canada and Mexico, about 2 percent is discharged as ground-water outflow, and about 2 percent is consumed by people, animals, plants, and industrial and commercial processes (U.S. Geological Survey, 1990). For most of the United States, evaporation returns less moisture to the atmosphere than does transpiration. EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PROCESS Evapotranspiration is the water lost to the atmosphere by two processes-evaporation and transpiration. Evaporation is the loss from open bodies of water, such as lakes and reservoirs, wetlands, bare soil, and snow cover; transpiration is the loss from living-plant surfaces. Several factors other than the physical characteristics of the water, soil, snow, and plant surface also affect the evapotranspiration process. The more important factors include net solar radiation, surface area of open bodies of water, wind speed, density and type of vegetative cover, availability of soil moisture, root depth, reflective land-surface characteristics, and season of year. Assuming that moisture is available, evapotranspiration is dependent primarily on the solar energy available to vaporize the water. Because of the importance of solar energy, evapotranspiration also varies with latitude, season of year, time of day, and cloud cover. The distribution of mean daily solar radiation for the United States (fig. 2) shows a regional variation similar to that of mean annual lake evaporation (fig. 3) and mean annual air temperature. The areas that receive the maximum solar radiation and have the greatest lake evaporation in the conterminous United States are in the Southwest; the areas that receive the minimum solar radiation and have the least lake evaporation are in the Northeast and Northwest. According to the 1980 Bureau of Census data (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1987, p. 181), the area of open-water bodies in the 48 conterminous States totals 38.4 million acres. Mean annual lake evaporation ranges from about 20 inches in parts of Maine, Oregon, and Washington to about 80 inches in parts of Arizona, California, and Nevada. SUMMARY Apart from precipitation, evapotranspiration is the major component in the hydrologic budget. Evapotranspiration involves the process of evaporation from open bodies of water, wetlands, snow cover, and bare soil and the process of transpiration from vegetation. The principal climatic factors influencing evapotranspiration are solar radiation and wind speed. In the conterminous United States, evapotranspiration averages about 67 percent of the average annual precipitation and ranges from 40 percent of the precipitation in the Northwest and Northeast to about 100 percent of the precipitation in the Southwest. Estimates of the mean annual evapotranspiration have been derived from hydrologic budgets for each State. These estimates indicate that statewide evapotranspiration within the conterminous United States ranges from about 10 inches per year in the semiarid Southwest to about 35 inches per year in the humid Southeast. However, in selected areas of the Southwest where moisture is available and solar radiation is high, evapotranspiration rates in saltcedar have been estimated to be about 56 inches per year. Seasonal trends in evapotranspiration follow the seasonal trends in air temperature-maximum rates occur during the summer months, and minimum rates during the winter months. Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments installed on polar-orbiting satellites provide relative measurements of plant vigor, density of vegetation cover, and the seasonal duration of vegetation growth. These measurements also have been used to monitor the spatial and temporal persistence of drought for large areas. Changes in evapotranspiration during a drought depend largely on the availability of moisture at the onset of a drought and the severity and duration of a drought. Evaporation from open bodies of water during a drought increases, but transpiration by plants, particularly shallow-rooted plants, generally decreases. To effectively manage the Nation's water resources, water managers need to understand the significance of evapotranspiration in the hydrologic budget. Knowledge of the regional and seasonal variability of evapotranspiration and its change during a drought also is important.

Why is a "war on terrorism" so difficult to fight?

Why is a "war on terrorism" so difficult to fight?
Terrorism is a complex problem with many diverse causes. Consequently no single effective method to counter it exists. To combat terrorism, one must first understand the underlying motivations for each particular group's actions. Then a strategy needs to be developed based on those findings. Regardless, it is difficult to fight terrorism without endangering civil liberties, such as is the case in Northern Ireland. Many innocent people get caught in the cross-fire. Ending terrorist threats requires imaginative and fluid thinking, whether to attack the roots of terrorism or neutralize a particular group.

According to terrorism expert Paul Wilkinson the general principles which have the best track record in reducing terrorism include:

"No surrender to the terrorists, and an absolute determination to defeat terrorism within the framework of the rule of law and the democratic process;"

"No deals and no concessions, even in the face of the most severe intimidation and blackmail;"

"An intensified effort to bring terrorists to justice by prosecution and conviction before courts of law;"

"Tough measures to penalize the state sponsors who give terrorist movements safe haven, explosives, cash and moral and diplomatic support;"

"A determination never to allow terrorist intimidation to block or derail international diplomatic efforts to resolve major political conflicts in strife-torn regions, such as the Middle East. In many such areas terrorism has become a major threat to peace and stability, and its suppression therefore is in the common interests of international society."
One reason that the war on terrorism is so difficult to fight is because many of the terrorist cells are hidden. In addition to being hidden they are spread all over the world. In fact, there are many terrorists right here in the United States at this very moment. The United States has very porous borders. This means that it is fairly easy for people to travel in and out of the country. Of course it has been harder since the attacks on 9/11 but it still is possible.

There are also groups of terrorists called "sleeper cells" which means that they are dormant or on standby. One of the purposes of these kinds of groups is to simply blend in and remain undetected until they are told to carry out the terrorist attack. These people are also difficult to find.
In my opinion, this is because terrorism is not a country. You can't just take over all the land of country X and that means terrorism is done. In WWII, once we conquered Germany, the war in Europe was over. But there's no place that we can conquer to end the war on terror.

Also, the war on terror is harder because we are trying to stop individuals or small groups of people from doing things that will hurt us. It is hard to detect one individual trying to carry out an attack.

Finally, ending terrorism is as much about changing people's minds as it is about fighting. We have to make people not hate us, and that's hard to do.
A war on terrorism is difficult to fight due to its nature. Terrorism by definition is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. It may also be seen as a state of fear and submission produced by terrorization. The fact that terrorism has such a psychological impact means it affects everyone differently. It is a subjective response to an event. Anything that is subjective will be difficult to overcome for a large group of people, because people's responses will be different. Another reason that a "war on terrorism" is difficult to fight is that the individuals perpetrating the acts are diverse and spread out across the globe. It is difficult for the government to pin down the core of the group to cut off power. This is because there are so many different cores.
Terrorism is not isolated, nor easy to locate. Sure, we have the "hot spots" where some of them universally operate, however, that is just the tip of the iceberg.

A truly hardcore terrorist-bound organization is very secretive. It is indeed an organization, whose operations are no different than the CIA, FBI and such. Saying that- imagine how crazy it would be if the same rules of engagement given to OUR top secret groups is no different that those of the Taliban. And, the thing is, that they are.

This is why the war on terrorism is so hard to fight: Because it takes a lot of people to track the doings of a group just as strong and organized as our best military forces , yet, it takes also a separate group to understand their subcultural disdain for the American way of life. On top of that, who's to say what happens next? They are secretive and self-protective.

It will take a while (even much more so than now) to figure them out in full.
The war on terrorism is so challenging because of its unconventional nature. Unlike a traditional war that takes place on a definite battlefield, with clearly defined armies, and where the enemy is visible, the war on terror's difficulty is its elusive nature. The "enemy" can strike at any time, with any means, and through any venue. Traditionalism goes out the window in such a setting. Even the weapons are non- traditional. Bombs can be used, but cell phones could also be used as detonating devices. Guns might be used, but more likely devices like razors or chemicals would be employed. The terrorist has a distinct advantage in that they only have to be right once, while the opponent has to be right all the time in order to prevent disaster, loss of life, and public panic.
War on terror is very hard to fight for multiple reasons. First, the global separation of terrorist cell are very difficult to pinpoint. They are everywhere and nowhere at the same time. For example, we are still looking for Osama bin Laden after all these years. Connected to this point, terrorist are usually invisible. This fact alone make fighting terrorist almost impossible. Second, terrorists are always in the context of civilians and live among them. So, the act of discerning who is and is not a terrorist is very hard. Third, we need to realize that terrorists are very smart and they have the advantage of observing their places of attack. They always have the element of surprise.
The War on Terror is hard to fight because instead of having one big enemy that we can name and find, we have many little ones. Additionally, our enemies are harbored in countries in the Middle East with which we have few positive relations. They also attack in small groups or alone and aren't afraid to die.

Fighting Terrorism

Fighting Terrorism
INTRODUCTION
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”. The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. The symbolism of terrorism can leverage human fear to help achieve these goals

Do's and Don'ts for a Superpower
Be feared!
Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you possibly can. Although tactics may be similar, strategies for dealing with practical vs. apocalyptic terrorists can differ widely. Practical terrorists may have legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, although their methods cannot be tolerated. Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric, seek your destruction and must be killed to the last man. The apt metaphor is cancer: you cannot hope for success if you only cut out part of the tumor. For the apocalyptic terrorist, evading your efforts can easily be turned into a public triumph. Our bloodiest successes will create far fewer terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.

Do not be afraid to be powerful. Cold War-era gambits of proportionate response and dialog may have some utility in dealing with practical terrorists, but they are counter-productive in dealing with apocalyptic terrorists. Our great strengths are wealth and raw power. When we fail to bring those strengths to bear, we contribute to our own defeat. For a superpower to think small, which has been our habit across the last decade, at least, is self-defeating folly. Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp!

Speak bluntly. Euphemisms are interpreted as weakness by our enemies and mislead the American people. Speak of killing terrorists and destroying their organizations. Timid speech leads to timid actions. Explain when necessary, but do not apologize. Expressions of regret are never seen as a mark of decency by terrorists or their supporters, but only as a sign that our will is faltering. Blame the terrorists as the root cause whenever operations have unintended negative consequences. Never go on the rhetorical defensive.

Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable. Focus on keeping or enhancing the support from allies and well-disposed clients, but do not waste an inordinate amount of effort trying to win unwinnable hearts and minds. Convince hostile populations through victory.

Do not be drawn into a public dialog with terrorists, especially not with apocalyptic terrorists. You cannot win. You legitimize the terrorists by addressing them even through a third medium, and their extravagant claims will resound more successfully on their own home ground than anything you can say. Ignore absurd accusations, and never let the enemy's claims slow or sidetrack you. The terrorist wants you to react, and your best means of unbalancing him and his plan is to ignore his accusations.

Avoid planning creep. Within our vast bureaucratic system, too many voices compete for attention and innumerable agendas, often selfish and personal - intrude on any attempt to act decisively. Focus on the basic mission: the destruction of the terrorists with all the moral, intellectual and practical rigor you can bring to bear. All other issues, from future nation building, to alliance consensus, to humanitarian concerns are secondary.

Maintain resolve. Especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, experts and diplomats will always present you with a multitude of good reasons for doing nothing, or for doing too little (or for doing exactly the wrong thing). Fight as hard as you can within the system to prevent diplomats from gaining influence over the strategic campaign. Although their intentions are often good, our diplomats and their obsolete strategic views are the terrorist's unwitting allies and diplomats are extremely jealous of military success and military authority in their region (where their expertise is never as deep or subtle as they believe it to be). Beyond the problem with our diplomats, the broader forces of bureaucratic entropy are an internal threat. The counter-terrorist campaign must be not only resolute, but constantly self-rejuvenating in ideas, techniques, military and inter-agency combinations, and sheer energy. Old hands must be stimulated constantly by new ideas.

When in doubt, hit harder than you think necessary. Success will be forgiven. Even the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies. We must get over our cowardice in means. While small-scale raids and other knifepoint operations are useful against individual targets, broader operations should be overwhelming. Of course, targeting limitations may inhibit some efforts but whenever possible, maximum force should be used in simultaneous operations at the very beginning of a campaign. Do not hesitate to supplement initial target lists with extensive bombing attacks on nothing if they can increase the initial psychological impact. Demonstrate power whenever you can. Show; don't tell!

Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot (do not give them a chance to surrender, if you can help it). Contrary to academic wisdom, the surest way to make a martyr of a terrorist is to capture, convict and imprison him, leading to endless efforts by sympathizers to stage kidnappings, hijacking and other events intended to liberate the imprisoned terrorist(s). This is war, not law enforcement.

. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorists. That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults America's service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven, time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage to our nation's moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American democracy, values or behavior).

Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but: do not let the prospect of civilian casualties interfere with ultimate mission accomplishment. This is a fight to protect the American people, and we must do so whatever the cost, or the price in American lives may be devastating. In a choice between them, and us the choice is always us.

Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion. Apocalyptic terrorists cite religion as a justification for attacking us; in turn, we cannot let them hide behind religious holidays, taboos, strictures or even sacred terrain. We must establish a consistent reputation for relentless pursuit and destruction of those who kill our citizens. Until we do this, our hesitation will continue to strengthen our enemy's ranks and his resolve.

Do not allow third parties to broker a peace, a truce, or any pause in operations. One of the most difficult challenges in fighting terrorism on a global scale is the drag produced by nervous allies. We must be single-minded. The best thing we can do for our allies in the long-term is to be so resolute and so strong that they value their alliance with us all the more. We must recognize the innate strength of our position and stop allowing regional leaders with counterproductive local agendas to subdue or dilute our efforts.

Don't flinch. If an operation goes awry and friendly casualties are unexpectedly high, immediately bolster morale and the military's image by striking back swiftly in a manner that inflicts the maximum possible number of casualties on the enemy and his supporters. Hit back as graphically as possible, to impress upon the local and regional players that you weren't badly hurt or deterred in the least.

Do not worry about alienating already-hostile populations.
Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people. Do not try to use reasonable arguments against him. Shame him publicly, in any way you can. Create doubt where you cannot excite support. Most apocalyptic terrorists, especially, come from cultures of male vanity. Disgrace them at every opportunity. Done successfully, this both degrades them in the eyes of their followers and supporters, and provokes the terrorist to respond, increasing his vulnerability.

If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear, using clandestine means and, whenever possible, foreign agents to provoke them to break cover and react. Do not be squeamish. Your enemy is not. Subtlety is not superpower strength but the raw power to do that, which is necessary, is our great advantage. We forget that, while the world may happily chide or accuse us-or complain of our inhumanity-no one can stop us if we maintain our strength of will. Much of the world will complain no matter what we do. Hatred of America is the default position of failed individuals and failing states around the world, in every civilization, and there is nothing we can do to change their minds. We refuse to understand how much of humanity will find excuses for evil, so long as the evil strikes those who are more successful than the apologists themselves. This is as true of American academics, whose eagerness to declare our military efforts a failure is unflagging, or European clerics, who still cannot forgive America's magnanimity at the end of World War II, as it is of unemployed Egyptians or Pakistanis. The psychologically marginalized are at least as dangerous as the physically deprived.

Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances. Counter-terrorist operations must, above all, be relentless. This does not necessarily mean that military operations will be constantly underway sometimes it will be surveillance efforts, or deception plans, or operations by other agencies. But the overall effort must never pause for breath. We must be faster, more resolute, more resourceful and, ultimately, even more uncompromising than our enemies.

Never declare victory. Announce successes and milestones. But never give the terrorists a chance to embarrass you after a public pronouncement that the war is over.

Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising. You will never deter fanatics, but you can frighten those who might support, harbor or attempt to use terrorists for their own ends. Our basic task in the world today is to restore a sense of American power, capabilities and resolve. We must be hard, or we will be struck wherever we are soft. It is folly for charity to precede victory. First win, then unclench your fist.
Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves. Turn the tide psychologically and practically. While this will not deter hard-core apocalyptic terrorists, it will dissipate their energies as they try to defend themselves and fear will deter many less-committed supporters of terror. Do not be distracted by the baggage of the term assassination. This is a war. The enemy, whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On our soil, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Those who abet terrorists must grow afraid to turn out the lights to go to sleep.

Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backward to past failures, not forward to future successes.
In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West's. Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded as off-limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans.
Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion. Begin with the study of the classical world, specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire's attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed!
CONCLUSION
Since terrorism is a global issue, counter-terrorism measures are also a global issue which requires cooperation and collaboration of multi-dimensional groups such as academicians representing the theoretical and research part, policymakers representing the coordination and authorization part and professionals representing the practical and real life experience.

Ways to Nurture Your Child

Some kids seem to be born with more self-esteem than others, but there's a lot you can do to promote your child's emotional well-being — a stronger sense of self can make your child more emotionally resilient when problems come his way.
Providing for your child's physical needs (food, shelter, clothing) is a fairly straightforward matter. Trying to provide for your child's emotional needs can be trickier. Although there are many parenting styles, most experts agree on some general guidelines for nurturing a child's emotional health and laying the ground work for an emotionally healthy adulthood.

• Be aware of stages in child development so you don't expect too much or too little from your child.
• Encourage your child to express his or her feelings; respect those feelings. Let your child know that everyone experiences pain, fear, anger, and anxiety. Try to learn the source of these feelings. Help your child express anger positively, without resorting to violence.
• Promote mutual respect and trust. Keep your voice level down — even when you don't agree. Keep communication channels open.
• Listen to your child. Use words and examples your child can understand. Encourage questions. Provide comfort and assurance. Be honest. Focus on the positives. Express your willingness to talk about any subject.
• Look at your own problem-solving and coping skills. Are you setting a good example? Seek help if you are overwhelmed by your child's feelings or behaviors, or if you are unable to control your own frustration or anger.

FURTHER INFORMATION ON BRINGING UP CHILDREN MORE
Encourage your child's talents and accept limitations. Set goals based on the child's abilities and interests — not someone else's expectations. Celebrate accomplishments. Don't compare your child's abilities to those of other children; appreciate the uniqueness of your child. Spend time regularly with your child. Of course we want our kids to be compassionate and sensitive to other people’s feelings. The problem is that many kids’ empathy potential is greatly handicapped because they don’t have the ability to identify and express emotions. They have tremendous difficulty feeling for the other person simply because they may not recognize the other person’s hurt, elation, discomfort, anxiety, pride, happiness, or anger. What these kids need is an education that provides stronger emotional intelligence: an adequate vocabulary of feelings and then the encouragement to use it. Once they are more emotionally literate and can understand their own feelings their empathy will grow, because they will be far more capable of understanding and feeling other people’s concerns and needs.
We also know that one of the biggest reasons some kids are more sensitive is that they can correctly interpret people’s emotional cues: their tone of voice, posture, and facial expressions. Without that understanding, a child is greatly limited in his ability to react to that person’s needs. The good news is that sensitivity can be nurtured in a child. Here are six proven solutions you can use almost anytime to tune up your child’s awareness of the feelings of others.
1. Praise sensitive, kind actions. One of the simplest and most effective ways of enhancing any behavior is by reinforcing the action as soon as it happens. So whenever you notice your child acting in a sensitive and caring manner, let her know how pleased it makes you feel: “Karen, I love how gentle you are with your baby sister. You pat her so softly, and it makes me so happy knowing how caring you are.”
2. Show the effect of sensitivity. Sensitive, kind acts-even small ones-can make a big difference in people’s lives, so point them out to help your child see the impact his actions made. “Derrick, your grandmother was so pleased when you called to thank her for the present.” “Suraya, did you see the smile on Ryan’s face when you shared your toys?”
3. Draw attention to nonverbal feeling cues. Pointing out the facial expressions, posture, and mannerisms of people in different emotional states sensitizes your child to other people’s feelings. As occasions arise, explain your concern and share what clues helped you make your feeling assessment: “Did you notice Grandma’s face when you were talking with her today? I thought she looked puzzled. Maybe she is having trouble hearing. Why not talk a little louder when you speak with her?” “Did you see the expression on Meghan’s face when you were playing today? She looked worried about something because she had a scowl on her face. Maybe you should ask her if everything is OK.”
4. Ask often, “How does he feel?” One of the easiest ways to nurture your child’s sensitivity is to ask her to ponder how another person feels. As opportunities arise, pose the question often, using situations in books, TV, and movies as well as real life. “How do you think the mommy feels, knowing that her little girl just won the prize?” “The tornado destroyed most of the town here in Georgia; see it here on the map? How do you think the people feel?” “How do you think Daddy feels hearing that his mom is so sick?” Each question forces your child to stop and think about other people’s concerns, and nurtures sensitivity to their needs.
5. Use the formula: “feels + needs.” Michael Schulman and Eva Mekler, authors of Bringing Up a Moral Child, reviewed studies and found that an effective way to increase sensitivity is to ask children questions to help them discover people’s needs and feelings. Such questions were found to expand children’s awareness of what people might be experiencing. As a result the children became more sensitive to how they might be able to help. To use the idea with your child, look for occasions to draw attention to people’s feelings and then ask her to guess what the person might need in order to remedy the feeling. Here is how a parent might use the method:
Parent: Look at that little girl crying in the sandbox. How do you suppose she feels?
Child: I think she is sad.
Parent: What do you think she needs to make her feel better?
Child: Maybe she could use someone to hug her because she hurt her knee.
6. Share why you feel the way you do. One of the best ways to help kids become sensitive to others’ feelings is to share your own. Use situations as they arise to describe how you feel about them and why: “I’m so excited! My new computer is being delivered to me today.” “I am frustrated; yesterday the auto body shop told me that fixing the car would cost five hundred dollars, and now they say it’s going to cost a lot more.” “I’m so tired. The barking dogs kept me up all night.”
•
• Foster your child's independence and self-worth. Help your child deal with life's ups and downs. Show confidence in your child's ability to handle problems and tackle new experiences.
• Discipline constructively, fairly, and consistently. Use discipline as a form of teaching, not physical punishment. All children and families are different; learn what is effective for your child. Show approval for positive behaviors. Help your child learn from his or her mistakes.
• Love unconditionally. Teach the value of apologies, cooperation, patience, forgiveness, and consideration for others.
• Do not expect to be perfect; parenting is a difficult job.