Featured

The Power of Your Subconscious Mind & How to turn them into tangible assets-2

It is essential to know how your mind works to understand, learn, practice and enhance your skills and ability to turn your mind traps into tangible assets. To start getting to know the two functions of your mind is vital. A magical bridge to getting to know it is to think of them as a garden (Murphy, 1963). You are the garden. And the subconscious and conscious minds are the two functions of your mind. Since you are born, you start planting seeds in your subconscious mind every day. Most of the time, you are not aware of doing so, because the seeds/mind-traps based on your thinking are habitual.

Imagine your subconscious mind as a bed of rich soil that will aid all kinds of seeds to grow and flourish, whether good or bad. If so thorns, will you pick grapes? If you sow thistles, will you harvest figs? Every thought is a cause, and every condition is an effect. Thus this is very important you take control of your thoughts. Only, in that case, you can bring forth desirable conditions.


Now, begin to sow thoughts of happiness, peace, right action, goodwill, and prosperity. Think quietly and with bias on these qualities. Accept them in your conscious reasoning mind. Continue to plant these wonderful and magical seeds of thoughts in the garden of your mind, and you will reap a glorious harvest.


When your mind thinks correctly, when you understand the truth, when the thoughts deposited in your subconscious mind are constructive, harmonious, and peaceful, the magic working power of your subconscious mind will respond without you even realising.

Experiments by Psychologists
Psychologists and others have carried out countless experiments on people who are in a hypnotic trance. This research illustrates the subconscious mind does not make selections and comparisons, and they are necessary for a reasoning process. Your subconscious mind will accept any suggestions since birth, however false and wrong.
Once a seed is accepted by your subconscious mind, it will respond according to the nature of the suggestion given. Note, your subconscious mind can’t reason, argue or dispute what is told.

To be continued

The Conspiracy Theories

Applying Business Administration and Psychological Frameworks to Conspiracy Theories and Movements

Why We Believe: Human Needs and the Appeal of Conspiracies

The reason people believe in conspiracy theories is often rooted in fundamental human needs. Psychologists and sociologists note that these theories typically appeal to:

1. A Desire for Control: During times of crisis, social unrest, or personal powerlessness, a complex plot can feel more comforting than accepting that random, chaotic events shape the world.

2. Epistemic Curiosity: A drive to find hidden meanings or feel uniquely informed (“in on a secret”) when official explanations feel inadequate

3. Distrust of Authority: Deep-seated skepticism toward governments, mainstream media, or established scientific institutions.

It is worth noting the difference between a conspiracy theory and an actual conspiracy. History features numerous examples of secret, illegal plots that were eventually exposed by journalists, whistleblowers, or investigators—such as the Watergate scandal or the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. The key distinction is that proven conspiracies rely on verifiable documentary evidence and accountability, whereas unfalsifiable conspiracy theories generally crumble under factual scrutiny and often adapt to dismiss any evidence that contradicts them.

A Roadmap to the Series: Marketing Core, Innovation, HRM, Strategy, Leadership Theories, and Recruitment Policy and Practice:

Modern systemic agendas and institutional strategies are frequently operationalised through a synthesis of established organisational frameworks. These include marketing communication models, strategic management systems, leadership theories, Human Resource Management (HRM) practices, and the structural mechanisms of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies alongside KSAO (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other Characteristics) recruitment criteria.

Central to this apparatus is the Triple Helix innovation model (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000), which forms part of a broader family of ecosystem-based frameworks governing the relationships between government, academia, and industry. Within this architecture, mechanisms such as DEI policies and KSAO frameworks function as selective filters, utilised to appoint specific profiles of individuals within each institutional helix.

Marketing and strategic management frameworks play a critical role in structuring and executing complex systemic agendas. Analytical models such as SWOT, PESTEL, and STP are frequently utilised not merely to identify market niches, but to manufacture and segment populations for specific objectives. Through the SWOT model (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats)—which functions simultaneously as a business strategy and a behavioral framework—target populations can be isolated and organised into distinct groups (such as ideological factions, specialised communities, or insular networks) to advance broader institutional goals.

One important realisation is that individuals may inadvertently participate in these networks or entities without realising it. People might be supporting them based on their needs: political views, beliefs, religious preferences, and biases. Specifically the pro activities involved in any agenda are the requirements to run the missions in order to achieve the alliances’ objectives. Anyone might feel that he/she is not being influenced, but it can be difficult to recognise how his/her perspective(s) is continuously shaped by the factors mentioned above. I admit that I was influenced a few times myself in the past, but I was fortunately able to recognise it. If I can make you ask yourself, “How have they influenced me?” a crucial question arises. As noted, this happens through biases, baseless ideas, and beliefs. But also through algorithms tailored to the habits and daily routines. This raises a question: How do they target people through algorithms? 

Data collection serves as the primary mechanism for this surveillance and influence. Organisations aggregate user data through purchasing histories, loyalty programs, and digital footprints. These tasks are executed via targeted marketing technologies and content strategies, where specialised software, such as Search Engine Optimisation tools (SEO) is deployed to isolate specific demographics. This process relies heavily on the STP framework—Segmentation, Targeting, and Positioning—to focus strategic efforts on specific consumer populations. Rather than functioning as an isolated process, this targeting is synthesised from multiple overlapping STP analyses. Furthermore, when viewed through the lens of the Triple Helix innovation model—which traditionally examines the collaborative dynamics between academia, industry, and government—both employees and consumers are systematically integrated into a technocratic apparatus. By converging institutional cultures and consumer habits under the guise of collaborative innovation, these entities effectively standardise human behaviour (micro factors and forces) to align with macro-level systemic goals.

Another layer of this complex systemic structure involves the introduction of subsequent helices. Carayannis and Campbell expanded the framework by formulating the Quadruple Helix model, which integrates a fourth sphere encompassing civil society, media, and culture. This addition acknowledges that the public and media actively shape innovation within a “knowledge democracy”. In practice, this represents how public culture, values, and user behaviour are systematically engaged, influenced, and changed through collaborative innovation channels.

Beyond this lies a fifth layer: the Quintuple Helix model, also developed by Carayannis and Campbell. This model introduces a fifth sphere focused on the natural environment, framing innovation around sustainable development, eco-innovation, and climate response. From the perspective of analysing institutional control, elements such as environmental protection, climate policies, and technological advancements are integrated into the system.

When observing these patterns, critics argue that these innovation models—originally designed to optimise freedom of choice, security, health, and financial sustainability—have been co-opted. Rather than serving purely public benefits, these multi-layered frameworks can be operationalised to manufacture systemic complexities, driving agendas that align with concentrated institutional objectives rather than grassroots autonomy.

The Distributive Leadership theory (James P. Spillane, Richard Halverson, and Jonathan Diamond, 2002)—Peter Gronn shaped the theory, and Alma Harris expanded the concept, particularly within educational reform and school improvement settings—plays a crucial part in this mechanism. It focuses on people, time, and location (geography in global context). It targets and enables specific people with specific traits—audiences identified by the SWOT (It helps to understand the baseline requirements in order to make informed decisions) and STP (It helps to pinpoint the ideal audience and carve out a unique space for the product and service) analytical tools—at the right time and location. Followed by the Goal theory to motivate the targets to meet their needs in order to achieve the institutional objectives. 

Psychological Tactics (Distributive Leadership); The Sociological / Political Psychology Approach

Concurrently, a secondary mechanism within this process involves the mobilisation of individuals exhibiting Dark Triad traits—specifically Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Machiavellianism (often categorised within Cluster B personality disorders). Within hierarchical structures, authorities or dominant actors frequently leverage narcissistic individuals for tactical control. When primary leadership encounters resistance, lower-status narcissists are deployed to utilise psychological projection, externalising their own latent humiliation, shame, and envy (needs) onto targeted individuals or groups. Because narcissists experience any debate or dissent as an existential threat, this dynamic forces targets into a state of emotional and physical exhaustion, rendering them vulnerable. This repetitive cycle mirrors the patterns of emotional entrapment often termed “hoovering” in clinical literature (Vaknin, 1999). Scholars note that certain manifestations of hyper-individualistic narcissism are reinforced by broader societal structures. Consequently, these interpersonal tactics can scale up to function as structural instruments of polarisation and systemic chaos, aligning with the strategic objectives of institutional elites.

The upcoming academic blog explores how artificial intelligence operates, bridging the gap between machine behaviour and human psychology—specifically examining its intersections with Cluster B personality disorders. This discussion also ties directly into the themes explored in our previous series, The Power of Your Subconscious Mind.

The central aim of these blogs is to emphasise why applying the Blind-Test framework (Skills, Integrity, and Reality Testing) is not only important for recruitment, but an absolute necessity in modern sales. A provocative question arises from this intersection: Why shouldn’t advanced tech devices and internet access be sold to individuals with Cluster B personality disorders?

The answer lies in how artificial intelligence functions. AI does not operate in a moral vacuum; rather, it reflects human flaws, learning directly from our behaviors and acting as a digital mirror.

In the upcoming essay, we will delve deeper into the mechanisms behind this phenomenon.

References

  Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how to make sense, make sense, and make use of innovation systems and frameworks: Coping with knowledge landscapes and innovation dynamics. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 2(4), 377–396. ResearchGate

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3–4), 201–234. Semantic Scholar Link

 Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. IDEAS/RePEc Link  

 Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(8), 423–431. (See also The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451). ScienceDirect Link

 Harris, A. (2008). Distributed Leadership: According to the Evidence. Routledge. Routledge Link

 Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership: Distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. American Educational Research Association 

 Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34. Taylor & Francis Online Link  

 Vaknin, S. (1999). Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited. Narcissus Publications. Google Ebook

Beyond the Checklist: How Organisation Hiring Fails to Filter Out Cluster B “Theatrical Performers”

When we talk about modern talent acquisition, discussions routinely revolve around Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks, administrative compliance checklists, and structured KSAO (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other characteristics) guidelines. As explored in previous discussions on this blog, traditional recruitment funnels often lean heavily on cosmetic compliance and superficial metrics. They manage demographic balance while keeping full biographical profiles visible, occasionally reducing hiring to a form of administrative tokenism.

But there is a deeper, more dangerous blind spot hiding underneath corporate hiring funnels—one that traditional resume screens and unstructured interviews completely miss.

What happens when an applicant doesn’t just game the system, but treats their entire professional existence as a meticulously scripted performance?

The Theatrical Artifice of Cluster B Personalities

In behavioural psychology and institutional analysis, a critical piece of the puzzle often goes unrecognised: the intrusion of severe behavioural pathologies, specifically Cluster B personality profiles (such as malignant narcissism and psychopathy).

Drawing from clinical insights by Sam Vaknin, individuals characterised by pathological narcissism treat time and life itself as a canvas for a grand, calculated narrative. Their professional presentation is a carefully directed theatrical script. Their communication is overblown, their motions are controlled, and their emotional displays are finely tuned simulations designed to mimic genuine empathy and competence rather than reflect it.

Because traditional recruitment protocols rely on unstructured open-ended interviews and self-presentation, they are entirely defenseless against this kind of artifice. High-manipulation actors excel at charm, impression management, and telling interviewers exactly what they want to hear. Standard resume reviews cannot pierce through a performance that has been expertly engineered to deceive.

The Cost of Uncoordinated Recruitment

When an organisation relies on superficial hiring checkpoints, these high-manipulation personalities easily secure entry into positions of power. Once inside, they exploit structural vulnerabilities, drive chronic workplace toxicity, and systematically dismantle organisational cohesion.

Unlike ordinary unqualified hires, a Cluster B “toxic actor” leverages institutional blind spots to weaponize compliance structures against the firm. They exploit the gaps left by uncoordinated screening tools—where a resume’s historical pedigree or an interviewer’s subjective “gut feeling” overrides objective behavioral data.

Moving Toward an Integrated Solution

Our approach to corporate recruitment and organisational behaviour must evolve. Administrative checklists and cosmetic compliance do not protect a company’s culture; in fact, they often create a false sense of security that blinds decision-makers to hidden risks.

To safeguard enterprise performance, financial health, and workplace ethics, talent acquisition cannot remain a fragmented, subjective exercise. We need a synchronised framework that replaces unstructured “cultural matching” with rigorous, identity-blind, and behaviourally validated screening metrics.

By closing the structural gaps that allow theatrical performers and high-manipulation personalities to slip through the cracks, organisations can finally protect their core missions, secure long-term productivity, and restore true integrity to the modern workplace.

Closing Questions

In Recruitment Standards: How can modern organisations move beyond cosmetic compliance to implement true behavioural and integrity guardrails?

In Higher Education: Does the absence of behavioural screening allow high-manipulation Cluster B personalities to infiltrate academic administration and institutional leadership?

In Institutional Culture: What are the long-term costs to society when recruitment funnels remain blind to the mechanics of workplace toxicity?

References:

Vaknin, S. (2015) “Malignant Self-Love Narcissist Revisited”, Narcissus. Amazon. https://a.co/d/0hNhpTPh 

Vaknin, S. (2023) “Betrayal, Trauma, Dissociation: Roots of Cluster B Personality Disorders”. YouTube, Chapters: Integration and Realisation 1:08:45 and Disorders of Integration 1:14:03. https://youtu.be/v76xROZ9Yzs?is=MsFZHJbFlbsS51gh 

Beyond Performative Bureaucracy: How Flawed Recruitment Destroys Business Performance

1. The Triad of True Meritocracy: Task, Reality, and Morality Testing

When objective, KSAO (knowledge, skills, ability, and other characteristics) frameworks and subjective, superficial DEI metrics, organisations break the three foundational pillars of effective talent acquisition to evaluate a candidate’s true competency and prevent organisational pathology, companies must shift from administrative checklists to three distinct empirical dimensions:

1. Task Testing (Functional Competency): This evaluates practical, domain-specific skills. According to industrial-organisational psychology, work sample tests are among the highest predictors of real-world job performance because they leave no room for narrative padding or demographic tokenism. You either can execute the task, or you cannot.

 2. Reality Testing (Cognitive & Psychological Grounding): This assesses a candidate’s capacity to perceive objective facts and data over personal biases and self-delusion. High General Mental Ability (GMA) is deeply linked to strong reality testing. Candidates lacking this trait struggle to separate ideological performance or personal narcissism from business metrics, leading to flawed corporate decision-making.

 3. Moral Testing (Ethical Integrity): This evaluates genuine accountability versus performative compliance. In a quota-driven system, opportunistic candidates easily pass the “subjective diversity test” by mirroring social buzzwords. True moral testing screens for core ethical alignment and merit-based collaborative values, rather than the ability to play political or agendical ‘agenda-driven’ games inside the corporate hierarchy.

2. Exposing the Deficiencies of Legacy KASO Frameworks and DEI Policies

The Mechanics of Tokenism: How Dysfunctional Recruitment Weaponises Subjectivity and Objectivity Within Workplaces 

Tokenism does not occur in a vacuum; it is systematically engineered during the initial screening phase when organisations sacrifice empirical data for cosmetic compliance. Instead of genuinely integrating diverse perspectives or addressing systemic barriers, tokenism uses a small number of individuals as “tokens” to check a box or deflect accusations of discrimination. 

Over-indexing on subjective corporate attributes creates an environment ripe for structural dysfunction. As sociologist Lauren Rivera (2012) demonstrated in her landmark study on elite firms, empty metrics like “culture matching” are easily hijacked by interviewers to select candidates based on personal chemistry rather than competence. When applied to a modern, forced DEI landscape, this cultural matching process effectively replaces rigorous skills sorting, leading to what can be described as a dangerous distortion of Reality Testing.

And later, policy makers injected the standard objective KSAO (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other characteristics like Experience) frameworks to the subjective DEI approach. However, rather than strictly measuring behavioral traits, many corporate talent acquisition processes still over-index on historical Experience and Credentials (pedigree). This reliance on arbitrary resume markers rather than verified competencies creates an entry point for corporate underperformance, as it fails to measure a candidate’s actual competency to execute the role, effectively blinding the organisation’s capability for rigorous Task Testing.

Modern HR departments often superficially apply DEI policies and routinely misapply objective KSAO frameworks by prioritising malleable credentials over verified cognitive and behavioral attributes. The empirical literature established by Schmidt and Hunter (1998) demonstrates that traditional recruitment metrics, such as years of education or job experience, possess remarkably low predictive validity (r = 0.10 and r = 0.18, respectively) for actual job performance. Instead, Task Testing (Work Samples) and Moral Testing (Integrity Tests) remain the gold standard for predicting occupational output. By over-indexing on arbitrary resume markers and ignoring rigorous objective and ethical integrity assessments, modern talent acquisition fails to measure an individual’s actual capacity. This systemic screening failure distorts Reality Testing and creates an entry point for Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB), allowing toxic actors to infiltrate the workplace and compromise both Moral Testing and Task Testing.

When recruitment dynamics displace empirical filters, the corporate ecosystem loses its moral and operational anchors, opening a direct entry point for Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB). Grounded in the extensive personnel selection literature established by Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (1993) on integrity testing, mitigating these institutional deficiencies requires replacing superficial resume filters with uncompromised, validated safeguards. To neutralise internal collusion and toxic actors, organisations must implement standardised integrity testing.

Furthermore, to bridge the gap between administrative compliance and operational truth, recruitment frameworks must employ standardised Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs) as a core mechanism of empirical Reality Testing. Although initially validated within high-stakes professional admissions—specifically dental student selection—research by Buyse and Lievens (2011) demonstrates that placing candidates within high-fidelity, job-related scenarios provides a robust, objective measure of actual capability.

Additionally, according to Choi et al. (2011), evaluating candidates based on their situational judgment effectiveness (SJE) provides a robust, objective measure of cognitive and behavioral alignment with complex workplace dynamics. Within this framework, SJTs serve as the primary empirical anchor for Reality Testing by forcing candidates to confront high-fidelity, job-related scenarios rather than allowing them to rely on static resume descriptions or superficial interviews. By assessing functional decision-making under realistic organisational constraints, this method successfully neutralises performative, ideological rhetoric and ensures that selected individuals possess the objective psychological grounding required to perceive empirical facts over personal biases.

 Nonetheless, in practice each of these studies have failed, because each proposed solution lacks one or two of the proposed solution(s) by other researchers. So it could be argued that these three solutions need to be integrated in recruitment to sustain the organisational performance. 

3. References:

Buyse, T., & Lievens, F. (2011). Situational judgment tests as a new tool for dental student selection. Journal of Dental Education, 75(6), 743–749. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21642519/

Choi, D., Oh, I.-S., Guay, R. P., & Lee, E. (2011). Why do emotionally intelligent people have positive work attitudes? The mediating role of situational judgment effectiveness. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(4), 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00564.x

Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Letting people off the hook: When do good deeds excuse transgressions? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1618–1634. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210385922](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210385922)  

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 679–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679

Rhodes, C. (2021). Woke capitalism: How corporate morality is harming democracy. Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781529211689

Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412463213

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262

When Tokenism Replaces Meritocracy: How Subjective DEI Policies Erode Organisational Performance

The original mandate of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies was noble: to eliminate discrimination and cultivate equal opportunities for all. However, when organisations aggressively pivot toward purely subjective, qualitative criteria at the expense of objective merit, the system backfires. Instead of fostering equity, it opens the floodgates for a toxic cultural environment, unreliable performance, and institutional decline.

The Great Paradox: How “Inclusivity” Masks Behavioral Bias

One of the most destructive byproducts of highly subjective DEI frameworks is the rise of profound behavioral biases disguised as progressive values. In environments where performance metrics lack strict formulas, decision-making processes easily devolve into favoritism and “cronyism.”

This subjectivity triggers a destructive chain reaction:

 Unreliable Performance: When promotions are decoupled from actual knowledge, proven skills, and deep experience, the operational output of the organisation plummets.

 Negative Cultural Environment: High-performing, meritorious employees face systemic discrimination. Watching less-qualified peers gain roles purely based on subjective biases breeds resentment, killing motivation across the board.

Case Study: From Institutional Prestige to 129th Place

To understand the real-world consequences of this shift, we can look at a striking case study from higher education. Out of 130 ranked universities, one particular institution recently plummeted to 129th place—literally second to last. A root-cause analysis reveals that this downfall is directly tied to the highly subjective voting mechanisms used by its academic faculty.

The bias manifested clearly during the appointment of a crucial leadership role: the Director of the Research Department.

The Mechanics of Subjective Bias: Despite the university’s overarching rhetoric on gender diversity which is only focused on empowering women, the voting faculty (primarily female in this context) weaponised the subjective process. Instead of voting for seasoned, highly capable professors with superior research skills and knowledge, they utilised personal, superficial preferences. They voted overwhelmingly for a much younger, conventionally attractive male candidate who possessed significantly less experience and a weaker academic track record.

By prioritising physical appearance and age over academic merit, the department saw an immediate drop-off in research quality, ultimately decimating the university’s national standing.

The Price of Subjectivity: Socio-Economic Fallout

When behavioural bias trumps competence, the socio-economic fallout is devastating and measurable:

Conclusion & Looking Ahead

DEI initiatives can only succeed when anchored to objective, performance-driven KPIs. When diversity policies become a smokescreen for subjective whims, organizations suffer from paralysis, low morale, and terrible socio-economic outcomes.

Coming Up in the Next Blog…

Now, does this mean the traditional, purely objective approach—the one strictly tied to traditional SKAE (Skills, Knowledge, Ability, and Experience) metrics—was flawless? Far from it.

That traditional, objective framework also carried its own set of negative socio-economic outcomes and unsustainable performance traps, which is why many pushed away from it in the first place. However, as bad as those flaws were, they arguably yielded better, more stable results than the chaotic subjectivity we see today.

In my next blog post, I will break down exactly how the traditional SKAE approach failed, its historical negative outcomes, and why neither extreme is the answer. Stay tuned!

References

Boudreau, J.W. (2020) The Risk of Subjectivity in Diversity Initiatives. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2020/09/the-risk-of-subjectivity-in-diversity-initiatives [Accessed: 24 June 2026].

 Dobbin, F. and Kalev, A. (2016) ‘Why Diversity Programs Fail’, Harvard Business Review, 94(7), pp. 52-60. Available at: https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail [Accessed: 24 June 2026].

Ok, E. (2026) ‘10 Common of Performance Review’, Teamflect. Available at:  Biaseshttps://teamflect.com/blog/employee-engagement/types-of-bias-in-reviews [Accessed: 24 June 2026].

 Heilman, M.E. (2012) ‘Gender stereotypes and gender discrimination in the workplace’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, pp. 113-133. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019130851200007X [Accessed: 24 June 2026].

QS Top Universities (2025) London Metropolitan University: Rankings, Fees & Courses Details. Available at: https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/london-metropolitan-university (Accessed: 24 June 2026).

 Sandström, U. and Hällsten, M. (2008) ‘Persistent nepotism in peer-review’, Scientometrics, 74(2), pp. 175–189. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3 [Accessed: 24 June 2026].

The Complete University Guide (2026) London Metropolitan University Ranking UK 2026 / 2027. Available at: https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/universities/london-metropolitan-university [Accessed: 24 June 2026].

The Illusion of Behavioural Change: Why Surface-Level Interventions Fail Without Subconscious Realignment

A prime example of this academic misalignment can be found in the research of Dr. Stephen Hills (London Metropolitan University), whose work heavily focuses on “human behavioural change” through external social marketing and physical interventions like sports (boxing and football). While these “Outside-In” frameworks look attractive on paper for securing institutional funding, they completely ignore the ultimate driving force of human action: The Subconscious Mind.

The “Outside-In” Fallacy: Forcing Surface-Level Change

Academic frameworks often attempt to treat damaged individuals—such as offenders, alcoholics, or drug addicts—as products that can be re-engineered through a tactical marketing mix. For instance, research conducted on behalf of organizations like England Boxing argues that high-stimulus, aggressive physical outlets can naturally manage aggression and reintegrate marginalized youth into society (London Metropolitan University 2021). Similarly, sports-centric community projects in high-crime areas are framed as “seedbeds of peace” capable of driving social transformation (London Metropolitan University 2017).

But this approach suffers from a severe structural flaw: it confuses correlation with causation.

Forcing an individual into a boxing ring or onto a football pitch modifies their physical environment, but it does not heal their internal programming. True behavioral innovation cannot be forced from the outside. Any temporary compliance achieved through these surface-level frameworks is merely a mask, creating a convenient “front” that leaves the core behavioral drivers completely untouched.

The Subconscious Mind: The True Driver of Human Strategy

In absolute contrast to these linear behavioral theories, deep psychological and strategic reality proves that human transformation is strictly an “Inside-Out” process.

The subconscious mind holds the actual power over long-term human behavior. If the subconscious matrix is deeply fractured, conditioned by trauma, or driven by unresolved psychological variables, surface-level activities like sports are completely useless. The subconscious acts as a permanent filter; unless the internal blueprint is re-aligned and re-programmed, an individual will always default back to their core programming.

When institutions focus exclusively on the surface, they do not cure the problem—they merely redirect it. Without subliminal and subconscious healing, damaged individuals remain highly vulnerable to external manipulation, often becoming compliant “foot soldiers” within rigid institutional or corporate systems because their actual driving behavior was never truly reformed.

Conclusion

Academic research that reduces human behavioral change to a simple equation of external “independent variables” is an illusion. It serves as a superficial construct designed for institutional packaging rather than real, psychological resolution. To achieve true behavioral innovation, strategy must move away from the boxing ring and look directly into the deep, unyielding power of the subconscious mind.

Academic References (Harvard Style)

 Hills, S. (n.d.) Stephen Hills Profile. London Metropolitan University. Available at: https://www.londonmet.ac.uk/profiles/staff/stephen-hills-/ [Accessed 16 June 2026].

 London Metropolitan University (2017) Rethinking the use of sport to tackle social problems. London Metropolitan University News. Available at: https://www.londonmet.ac.uk/news/articles/rethinking-the-use-of-sport-to-tackle-social-problems/ [Accessed 16 June 2026].

 London Metropolitan University (2021) New research suggests why boxing helps re-engage disaffected young people. London Metropolitan University News. Available at: https://www.londonmet.ac.uk/news/articles/new-research-suggests-why-boxing-helps-re-engage-disaffected-young-people/ [Accessed 16 June 2026].

 ResearchGate (n.d.) Dr. Stephen Hills Research Profile. ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen-Hills [Accessed 16 June 2026].

Freud, S. (1920) Beyond the Pleasure Principle. London: International Psycho-Analytical Press. Available at: https://archive.org/details/beyondpleasurepr00freuuoft [Accessed 17 June 2026].

 Nietzsche, F. (1968) The Will to Power. Translated by W. Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books. Available at: https://archive.org/details/willtopower00niet [Accessed 17 June 2026].

 Peterson, J.B. (1999) Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. New York: Routledge. Available at: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-meaning/ [Accessed 17 June 2026].

 Vaknin, S. (2015) Malignant Self-Love: Narcissism Revisited. Prague: Narcissus Publications. Available at: https://samvaknin.tripod.com/index.html [Accessed 17 June 2026].

References on Academic Funding Critique (“Sport for Development” Illusion):

 Coakley, J. (2011) ‘Youth sports: What counts as “positive development?”‘, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35(3), pp. 306-324. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193723511417311 [Accessed 17 June 2026].

 Coalter, F. (2007) A Wider Social Role for Sport: Who’s Keeping the Score? London: Routledge. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/A-Wider-Social-Role-for-Sport-Whos-Keeping-the-Score/Coalter/p/book/9780415363518 [Accessed 17 June 2026].

 Giulianotti, R. (2012) ‘The sport for development and peace sector: A critical sociology of innovative international development’, British Journal of Sociology, 63(1), pp. 24-47. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2011.01395.x [Accessed 17 June 2026].

 Hartmann, D. and Depro, B. (2006) ‘Rethinking sports-based crime prevention: A study of late 20th-century programs’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 30(2), pp. 180-196. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193723506286863 [Accessed 17 June 2026].

The Power of Your Subconscious Mind-8

The Weaponisation of Suggestion: Between Reality and the “Fantasy World”

Many of us are familiar with the concepts in “The Power of Your Subconscious Mind” by Dr. Joseph Murphy. However, there is a dark side to these principles when they are used by those living in a “Fantasy World” to project their own fears and malice onto others.

In pages 20 and 21 of the text, Murphy highlights a crucial law: The subconscious mind does not reason or contrast. It is like a “watchman at the gate,” reacting entirely to the impressions given to it by the conscious mind. It does not pick and choose; it simply takes what it is given.

The Sailor vs. The Passenger

The book uses the example of a ship passenger who is told they look seasick. Because they are “timid” and harbor inner fears, the suggestion takes hold, and they actually become ill. In contrast, a seasoned sailor laughs off the same suggestion because his mind is immune to the idea of seasickness.

This brings us to a chilling reality I witnessed within the academic and social circles of London—from the halls of the university to the elite connections in Kensington Palace. When the wife of my former professor began sending me “suggestions” in Latin and Portuguese via Google Docs—filled with curses and dark omens—she wasn’t just being malicious. She was projecting her own “rotten seeds.”

The Occult “Stage-Setting” and the Yellow Light

In recent years, I observed what appeared to be elaborate psychological staging. After being forced into homelessness and staying in specific Airbnbs, I encountered a room that mirrored my professor’s home, featuring a specific mirror and a haunting yellow light. In certain occult traditions, this setup is used when someone has died a horrific or “evil” death, intended to guide a malevolent spirit away.

These individuals—the ones orchestrating these psychological games—didn’t just become this way. They were “subjects” to a horror environment from the moment they were in the womb until the age of three. During those formative years, their family environment planted “rotten seeds” in the fertile soil of their developing minds.

For decades, they have done nothing but water, water, and water those seeds of malice.  By the time they reach adulthood, this conditioning is so deeply rooted that there is no way for them to change. They are locked in a cycle of destruction. They tried to use Murphy’s book against me, claiming my “subconscious” was the cause of my struggles, ignoring the fact that I have mastered these concepts since childhood. I am the “Sailor”; their suggestions have no power over me.

Questions for the Readers

Based on my observations and the “theater” these women from the university and their connections have staged, I want to pose a few questions to those who understand the deeper layers of the mind:

• The Reflection of Death: Given the specific “Maya” rituals I witnessed—the yellow lights and mirrors—do you think the woman in that house (the professor’s wife) committed suicide or died in a tragic “accident”? Was the suggestion of death she tried to impose on me actually just her own paralyzing fear of her own end?

• The Rotten Seeds: Why do these women in such low-ranking university positions act with such extreme severity and malice? Is it because they subconsciously recognize that their own minds are full of “rotten seeds”? By destroying the lives of others and engaging in “dirty work,” have they spent years watering a garden of filth in their own subconscious, and now they are terrified of the harvest?

They live in a “Fantasy World” because they cannot accept the reality of what they have become. They attempt to “cancel” others to avoid the cancellation of their own souls.

Next Blog Preview: I will dive deeper into how these specific “suggestions” were used to manipulate environments in the UK, and how a first-world city can function like a third-world psychological prison when the people in charge are governed by their own inner demons.

Brand Architecture and Comparison 1: Apple vs HP

Introduction 

This report will analyse and compare the HP and Apple brand architectures in the personal computers (PC) market. I have chosen these two brands because both are well known and compete in similar markets. In the personal computer market, Apple and HP are among the most valuable & popular brands and this report will describe how both brands are different from each other by analysing their brand architectures.

The goal of this report is to observe and identify how consumers can have vastly different perceptions and relationships for very similar products. And it’s due to the differences that exist within their brand architectures. 

Brand Architecture: 

At first, we have to develop brand pyramids for both brands (HP & Apple). 

Brand Core, Essence-Reinvention

Brand Personality-competitive, user friendly & frugal

Emotional Benefits-satisfaction, reliable & trustworthy

Product Benefits-most rugged, highest performing 

Product Attributes-flexible design, lasting battery & colour

Brand Core/Essence-Think Different

Brand Personality-lifestyle; imagination; liberty regained; innovation; passion; hopes, dreams and aspirations

Emotional Benefits-Pride, primum feel, classy & exclusivity

Product Benefits-Ease of use, security, long lasting & elegance

Product Attributes-beautiful and stylish, metal unibody design, Beautiful display & Great backlight illuminated Keyboard.

Brand comparison: 

Apple brands focus on their unique value proposition (UVP). They focus on creating and developing beautiful designs that work right out of the box with ever-smaller packaging. A marketing strategy gets juice throughout social media and is very much a competitive advantage for Apple and its market share. 

On the other hand, HP uses differentiating targeting strategy to provide customized products & services to the enterprises. HP uses a mix of value/product and pricing-based positioning strategies to compete in the market. 

Apple follows market-skimming strategy, but HP follows market penetration strategy.  Apples’ products help in gaining market share, brand awareness and brand loyalty but HP uses differentiating targeting strategy to provide enterprises/clients, customized products and services. 

Brand Value: 

Interbrand ranked Apple as the number one with $234,241 million dollar and HP in 54th position in ranking with $10,891 million dollar. Apple revolutionised personal technology with the introduction of the Macintosh in 1984. Today, Apple leads the world in innovation with iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch and Apple TV.

HP Inc creates technology that makes life better for everyone, everywhere. Through our portfolio of personal systems, printers and 3D printing solutions, we engineer experiences that amaze. 

Apple tops Forbes’ annual look at the world’s most valuable brands for the ninth straight time. The brand of the tech giant is worth $205.5 billion and increased 12% over last year in 2020. It is the first time a brand crossed the $200 billion threshold. 

As a laptop brand, HP is quite better than Acer and ASUS when it comes to durability as well as performance. Overall, HP computers might not be able to offer the stylish and attractive design, but they are very reliable and come for a very reasonable price with excellent warranty and support. 

But how PC companies are ranked in terms of their performances in gaming, writing and working from home is another subject and is not relevant to branding. Though, on the first of June in (2022) Hogarty reported overall the best laptop is Dell XPS 15: £1,549, Dell.com (Independent, 2022). The table below illustrates all the PC brands ranking in different categories under their actual performances in 2022. (Please note, the photo below is a screenshot from Independent online news. You can find the link in the references section)

References:  

Blabla Writing (2022) ‘Apple branding strategy’. Available at: http://www.marketingminds.com.au/apple_branding_strategy.html  (Accessed: 2nd June 2022)

Quara (2022) ‘What are the pros and cons of using a MacBook’. Available at: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-having-an-Apple-laptop . (Accessed: 2nd June 2022)

Patel, N. (no date) “7 Key Strategies That You Must Learn from Apple’s Marketing”. Available at https://neilpatel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/176-7-Key-Strategies-That-You-Must-Learn-from-Apple’s-Marketing.pdf. (Accessed: 2nd June 2022)

Interbrand (2021) ‘Best global brands in 2021’. Available at: https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2019/ranking/. (Accessed: 2nd June 2022)

UKessay (2020) ‘Apple marketing strategy’. Available at: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/the-marketing-strategy-of-apple-inc-marketing-essay.php. (Accessed: 2nd June 2022)

Badenhausen, K. (2019) ‘The World’s Most Valuable Brands 2019: Apple On Top At $206 Billion’. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2019/05/22/the-worlds-most-valuable-brands-2019-apple-on-top-at-206-billion/. (Accessed: 2nd June 2022)

Hogarty, S. (2022) ‘Best laptops 2022: High-performance devices for working from home or gaming on the go’. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/gadgets-tech/laptops-tablets/best-laptop-uk-laptops-b1883320.html. (Accessed: 2nd June 2022)

Plastic Waste and Pollution in Great Britain

What is the problem? 

Plastic bottle pollution 

McKinsey Sustainability in (2015) reported plastic waste has been increasing continuously. For instance, an estimated 8 million tonnes of plastic waste enters the oceans every year (McKinsey, 2015). TBSG Procurement in (2020) argued about what will happen if we don’t reduce plastic bottle use.  The landfills are already filled in with plastic and this will continue to increase plastic pollution in our cities, rivers, sea, and land.  

 BBC in (2020) reported Coca-Cola, +0.64% was rated the top plastic polluter in 2017 in a survey and Coca-Cola earned the highest income from sold beverage plastic bottles in 37 out of 51 surveyed countries in the world. The Coca-Cola label  was found on 13,834 plastic wastes. Plastic waste is rising constantly. Beals in (2017) reported Coca-Cola was the number one world plastic producer in 2017. Staff  in (2018) highlighted Coke, PepsiCo and Nestle in order were the world top plastic polluters in 2018. Nace in (2019) highlighted in 2019 Coca-Cola was ranked the world number one plastic polluter in a collecting plastic wastes survey. 475,000 plastic bottle wastes were collected from 52 countries around the globe.

 Break Free From Plastic in (2020) highlighted Coke was ranked top plastic polluter in 2020. Break Free From Plastic in (2020) gathered 346,494 items of plastic waste, that 63%  belonged to brands like Coca-Cola and is the winner in creating plastic bottle pollution in 2020 again (Brand Audit, 2020). On 25th of October 2021 Coca-Cola and PepsiCo companies ranked number one plastic polluters again for the fifth time (Breakfree From Plastic, 2021).

Also, plastic bottled water bottles have massive impacts on the environment. Parliament.Uk in (2017) cited RECOUP (RECycling of Used Plastics Limited) calculations, UK households use 13 billion plastic bottles per year which 7.7 billion are plastic bottled water that has doubled in the past 15 years. Plastic bottle waste in the UK (House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 2017) reported clearing litter and enforcing the law cost the authorities £778 million in 2015/2016.

 Plastic bottle waste in the UK (House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 2017) reported that the average person in the UK will use 150 bottled water each year and in London is 175 bottles water per person every year. Littering plastic bottles damages our environment, streets, pollutes the sea and rivers, and wildlife. If plastic pollution continues to increase in the sea and rivers, it will vanish by 2050. Turning back the plastic tide “plastic bottles’  House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee in (2017) reported, according to Eunomia recycling plastic bottles produces almost 233,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year.

 McKinsey Sustainability Stated in (2022) there are barriers to plastic bottle recycling which are 1) Lack of good management 2) Technology errors, 3) process, 4) Material barriers, 5) Shortage in landfills capacity and shortage of recycling companies, 6) High Costs and Time Consuming. 

 Moreover, plastic bottle’s arenot the only factor posing the identical needs and problems. According to WasteAdvantages Magazine in (2016), single use paper cups are not easy to recycle because they are not 100% made of paper. A layer of polyethylene is added to the paper cups to make them waterproof. And requires a high amount of water to recycle. Further, House of Common Environmental Audit Committee in (2017), reported 2.5 billion coffee cups used every year. There were only 5K Coffee shops, which climbed to 20K in 2017 and forecasted to increase to 30K by 2025 in the UK. So, it’s possible that due to high demands and the UK addiction to coffee the paper cup wastes will radically rise. Accordingly, it’s a future problem and need toward the industry, economy as well the Government, environment, wildlife health and water (HCEAC, 2017). 

What is the solution?

Innovation in strategy and models is the key. Instead of applying the same strategy “recycling” over and over, reducing plastic wastes strategy opens doors to tackle the problem. And via innovation in tech to build a new tech to reduce plastic waste radically is the second key.

 Via innovation, Eco Smart Drink ATM is created which works like any other bank ATM but instead of producing money it provides clean, filtered, chilled and hot drinking water. As well as fizzy and none-fizzy beverages. Adjusted on the street, outside tube and underground stations, airports, shopping malls, food courts and McDonalds. And portable folding mugs as the term presents are foldable and very light which fit in pockets and bags to enable individuals to drink their preferable drinks from. Folding mugs already exist in the market. I have included some pictures to illustrate the foldable mugs in different shapes and sizes. 

Having said all above, I need 100 participants to answer my experiment  questionnaire which contains only two questions to measure how viable the new tech and  the new strategy “reduce plastic bottle usage” is. 

Please click on the link below to access the questionnaire.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdBAOscAQZdZ0aY6nlCsj8XrwkWT3-1VTvUsJgs8qQm4tBqLw/viewform?usp=sf_link

What is the problem with sustainability strategy and start-ups? Example

In this blog I will talk about why most of the organisations who are trying to solve plastic pollution can not tackle plastic waste pollution.

I recently realised that most of the organisations are copying each other via one strategy to tackle plastic pollution and that is recycling. They encourage individuals to start-up and create a new solution to apply recycling. They are investing fortunes to make their strategy and new ideas viable whereas the plastic waste is increasing rapidly and radically. 

The water and land surface temperature is increasing, negatively affecting our environment, water, wildlife and life under water and causing climate change as well as the economy. For instance, taxpayers are paying £800M for plastic recycling in the UK but why is plastic pollution getting worse. Well, the answer to this question is simple, because they are applying the same strategy “recycling” instead of reducing plastic use strategy. 

The problem is that their new recycling products are not viable and they are all time and cost consuming. Most of these techs lack of a sustainable infrastructure and most of them are in their early stages and already facing issues in the process. Also not all the plastic wastes get to the landfills. There’s a shortage in landfills capacity and most developed countries shipp their plastic wastes to poor countries which causes unethical and safe workplaces for unskilled and educated employees with low salaries. I have included some of their chosen start-ups which aim to tackle plastic pollution and why they are not viable. 

Most these awarding organisation chasing start-up who all follow recycling strategy for example,

Scrapp LTD, their mobile application guides you through your local recycling rules by simply scanning the barcode of any item. Will every individual use the app or have the time for it?Therefore, there is quantitative and qualitative research needed to measure if the solution is viable. Another example, Green Business has created a software so the industries can track and manage their wastes. I believe the giant global plastic polluters like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Nestle have the same strategy in place. For example, Coke developed a new strategy in 2019 to track and manage their plastic waste but the scores show that they have not been able to tackle the problem.

Or the other solution is replacing plastic packaging with other virgin resources which unknown problems will arise soon or later despite the technological, costs and time factors. 

For instance, Enzymity is a start-up and via biotechnological process using enzymes to turn plastic waste into virgin-grade plastic but there are challenges to this process. According to Khan Academy in (2022) 1), PH 2), temperature and 3), concentration are three factors that affect the process.

Therefore, I would like to gather data to give in-depth insights to the recycling strategy and use new resources to replace plastic. Please take part in my experiment which is a questionnaire to analyse the viability of these new ideas/start-ups and to stress their strategical problem. 

Please follow me on LinkedIn where I will be sharing the questionnaire. https://www.linkedin.com/in/janeabbassi/

References:
Khan Academy (2022) Enzyme structure and function. Available at: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/cellular-energetics/environmental-impacts-on-enzyme-function/a/hs-enzymes-review (Accessed: 25th January 2022).

Scrapp Ltd
Simplifying waste sorting: Our mobile application guides you through your local recycling rules by simply scanning the barcode of any item.
Country: UK
URL: www.scrapprecycling.com

Green Business: Our environmental compliance software helps various industries to track, log and manage their environmental assets.
Country: Ireland
URL: www.edac.ie

Enzymity
Closing the plastics loop: Our biotechnological process using enzymes turns plastic waste into new virgin-grade plastic.
Country: Latvia
URL: www.enzymity.com