Visulisation is the three-dimensional, multicolourd, singing-and-dancing version of affirmations that enables the subconscious to prefigure future achievement of success. It is a basic and fundamental human attribute, and one that can literally be the difference between surviving and not surviving.

When Victor Frankly, the Freudian psychologist, was examining the discriminating factors that enabled him, and many like him, to survive in the hell of the Nazi concentration camps, the key factor was the ability to visualise. All survivors had a vision of something beyond their current suffering, something more worthwhile, and something worth hanging on for.

This underlines the importance of each individual having a vision of something, outside and larger than herself, that gives her life some meaning. They very existence of a mission lifts the eyes to something more meaningful and enduring - and in so doing provides something to life for - at times when quiet surrender could be an attractive option. Such a vision gives a further reason d’eter for integrity, by providing a purpose that binds together the core values that make up self-worth.

One of the most powerful - and difficult to achieve - applications of visualisation is to focus your mind daily on the person you intend to become. Create a clear mental picutre of that person - and see it in full colour, and add sounds and smells, if they are appropriate. The emotional values you add to the visualisation are vital in making the full connection to your subconscious, which acts only on thoughts that are mixed with emotions. These techniques are, of course, widely valuated in files like sport and business, where the peak performers are nearly all visualisers. They all see, feel, and fully experience their success before they achieve it.

Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) played a crucial role in the development of India during the past 50 years. This sector constitutes about 95% of industrial units, and about 40% of total industrial output. Its direct and indirect exports potential stand at about 38%. With about 3.6 million SSI (Small Scale Industries) registered units employed close to two crore people, it employment potential is next only to the agriculture sector. Thus the performance of SME’s is important for the economic and social development of the country.

One of the ways be which this sector can be made to grow fast is by tapping both domestic as well as international markets through business linkages between Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and SMEs. Many OECD (Organisation for Economic Coorporation and Development) countries and some Asian ones have specific policies for developing business linkages between SMEs and MNCs. So, the SME sector in these countries have witnessed favorable growth and helped boost their countries’ exports in a very competitive way. For example, Thailand ensured that the state provided industry with physical infrastructure and technological resources. Other Asian governments (Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Province of Taiwan, China) have included various incentives in the form of tax breaks, preference in public contracts and soft credit lines for both Transnational Corporations (TNCs) SMEs to intensify relations and technology transfer. India, however, has no specific policy guidelines to develop linkages between SMEs and MNCs. Consequently, the vast majority of SMEs that cannot meet the requirements set by MNCs remain totally de-lined.

In business linkages between SMEs and MNCs, outsourcing and value chain management started to play a key role, since MNCs could not become competitive without a competitive supplier base. Thus, to create a capable supplier base, a three-pronged approach to developing supplier linkages is needed. There is a need to develop a technology programme to support research, development and innovation in SMEs by accelerating their rate of technology acquisition through realisation of R

Confusion is internal and/or external chaos. Faulty implications, cognitive distortions, interpersonal disruptions, and complex signs of confusion and conflict promote a spirit or atmosphere of misinformation, misinterpretation and miscommunication. Where there is considerable friction in the mix of expressive freedom and interpretative response, an atmosphere of uncertainty and commotion will prevail.

Although broad generalisations always oversimplify complex realities, we find numerous truths in the contrast between hierarchical, industrial manufacturing firms that dominated most of the twentieth century and today’s service-based and knowledge-sensitive organisations. When industry meant repeatedly carrying out standard, well-defined tasks and workers were seen metaphorically (and sometimes literally) as parts of a machine, progress could still be made when the social networks and relationships of individual employees were ignored or discouraged. In fact, those firms strongly depended on social capital and sometimes suffered from lack of it. Without some level of trust, respect, and generalised reciprocity, coordinated work of any kind is hard to accomplish. Still, as Henry Ford has commented, a certain rough logic behind treating people like cogs in a machine when you only expect and want them to do machine-like work.

But very little of the work of today’s knowledge firm is repetitive or mechanical. It requires responsiveness, inventiveness, collaboration and attention. Judgement, persuasiveness, shared decisions, the pooling of knowledge, and the creative sparks people strike off one another depend on engagement with the work and one another, on the commitment that makes one genuinely a member of an organisation rather than simply an “employee.” Although we ourselves sometimes fall into a trap of talking about “employers” and “employees” – the user and the used – those terms really belong to the industrial - age model and are inappropriate to the kind of work and working relationships we consider here. Today’s most economically productive work is largely voluntary, in the sense that doing it well calls for a willing engagement of the whole self in the task. “Going through the motions” is insufficient when the motions are not prescribed but change as you go along. In our view, the firm is neither a machine with each cog firmly in place performing its clearly defined task nor an unorganised (or self-organising) flock of opportunistic entrepreneurs pursuing their individual destinies. It is – it should be – a social organisation of people willingly engaged in a joint enterprise.

Dear Friend, your letter gently but unmistakably intimates that I am a slacker, a slacker in peace as well as in war; that when the World War was raging bitterly I dawdled my time with subjects like symbolic logic, and that now when the issues of reconstructing a bleeding world demand the efforts of all who care for the future of the human race, I am shirking my responsibility and wasting my time with Plato and Cicero. Your sweetly veiled charge is true, but I do not feel ashamed of it. On the contrary, when I look upon my professional colleagues who enlisted their philosophies in the war, who added their shrill voices to the roar of the cannons and their little drops of venom to the torrents of national hatreds, I feel that it is they who should write apologies for their course. For philosophers, I take it, are ordained as priests to keep alive the sacred fires on the altar of impartial truth, and I have been faithfully endeavored to keep my oath of office as well as the circumstances would permit. It is doubtless the height of the unheroic to worship truth in the bombproof shelter of harmless mathematics when men are giving their lives for democracy and for public order which is the soldiers, if the Sermon on the Mount were utterly erased to give place to manuals of bayonet practice or instructions on the use of poison gas. What avails it to beat the enemy if the sacred fires which we are sworn to defend meanwhile languish and die for want of attendance?

I feel that this award was not made to me as a man, but to my work – a life’s work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for glory and least of all for profit, but to create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before. So this award is only mine in trust. It will not be difficult to find a dedication for the money part of it commensurate with the purpose and significance of its origin. But I would like to do the same with the acclaim too, by using this moment as a pinnacle from which I might be listened to by the young men and women already dedicated to the same anguish and travail, among whom is already that one who will some day stand here where I am standing.

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat.

He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed – love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.

Until ****learns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet’s, the writer’s, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his spirit, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet’s voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.