Kategorie: General

No or yes what is your boomerang

Today’s quote comes from Henry David Thoreau: „The more things a man can leave behind, the richer he is.“

Looking past things, focussing on the essentials and letting everything go is always good advice. Only by looking away from time to time can I find more time for the essentials. Looking away is not meant in the sense of looking away from injustice, but rather not chasing after the children, putting away the dishwasher or letting the grass in the garden grow for a week longer.

What is the most important thing in life? This is something different for everyone, and there is no right or wrong here, either. It’s a question of your own socialisation, your own interpretation and your own experiences. Leaving things undone when something else in life is more important than the thing that needs to be done, then the person who allows to say no is the richer one. You can only say no with a clear conscience and thereby let something be loved if you know what is more important to you.

By saying no, you are saying yes to something else.

It only becomes difficult when you tend to say no as a matter of principle. Then you don’t say yes to something else that makes you richer, and can become a boomerang, as you deprive yourself of the opportunity to learn. Finishing something and not leaving it lying around can enrich you just as much as leaving things lying around.

What makes you richer in saing no, depends on the things and the circumstances.

Thank you for 10.000 Accesses

My book has now been viewed, 10000 times, many thanks to everyone who has engaged with the content in my book and hopefully enjoyed it. I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to those who have written a review.

I would especially like to thank Thilo Ziegenhagen, who interviewed me about my book and did an excellent job. Furthermore, I would also like to thank Mareike Teichmann, as she was the one who believed in my idea for this book. Claudia Peuser had a very positive influence. She is a supportive and always positive person, I got a lot of motivation to believe in myself from her. She is a loyal reader of my little articles.

But what is a book without readers, so thank you all very much.

Holding anger only harms the angry person

The quote of the week comes from Buddha: ‘Holding on to anger is like picking up a red-hot coal to throw at someone.’

Our anger is an important driving force of change. It prepares the body to defend itself and fight back. Anger is intended to protect us from a perceived attack and activates the autonomic nervous system accordingly. As soon as the nervous system is activated, we can no longer think clearly, we can no longer fully develop our creativity and compassion, as the social engagement system can no longer work when the autonomic nervous system is activated. (Polyvagal Theory of Stephen W. Porges)

By holding on to anger, we harm ourselves more than the person who triggered the anger in us. Anger also makes us age faster and changes our facial features. We appear haggard, disappointed and embittered.

The person who provoked our anger has long since forgotten the incident. We harm ourselves, when we hold on to anger. Like the glowing coal we hold in the own hand. The person holding the coal burns themselves. If you throw it at the person who has annoyed you, the coal cools down on the throwing path and only reaches the recipient when it has cooled down, if at all it will reach the person.

Holding on to anger and waiting for the opportunity for revenge only harms the one who has anger and not the one who receives the revenge. The time of anger is disproportionate to the time of revenge.

The side effects of anger, such as premature ageing, loss of creativity and hardening, are much more serious than waiting for an opportunity to repay it, which may never come.

Anger has its justification. You decide whether you want to get involved or let the anger fade away.

Buchrezession: Sonja Görlich: Führungs-Hacks für den Alltag Taschenbuch: 160 Seiten

Der Aufbau des Buches hat mir gut gefallen. Erst vom eigenen Ich als Führungskraft zum Team, zur Organisation und dann zur Widerstandskraft zu kommen, passt zu den Einflussbereichen, die man hat und die sich gegenseitig bedingen. Neuen Führungskräften können die ein oder anderen Hacks sicherlich gut für ihre Arbeit gebrauchen. Die Hacks kommen viel aus dem systemischen und konstruktivistischen Ansatz, der sehr effektiv ist und auch im Coaching angewendet wird.

Dennoch sehe ich ein paar Schwächen in dem Buch, die mich zu einer eher mäßigen Bewertung gebracht haben.

Die erste Schwäche ist, der fehlende Bezug zur Organisation / Unternehmen, in der die Führungskraft agiert. Führung hat immer etwas mit dem Kontext zu tun, indem ich bin. Welche Werte hat die Organisation / das Unternehmen, wie ist der Umgang miteinander, den ich als Führungskraft durch Beobachtungen erkennen kann. Gibt es bestimmte Führungsrichtlinien oder besonderes Verhalten, was von der Organisation / Unternehmen gefordert wird? Eine Führungskraft kann nicht einfach führen, wie sie will. Der Führungsstil muss in den Kontext passen und zur Organisation / Unternehmen, indem die Führungskraft arbeitet. Im Buch wird dies nicht einmal erwähnt. Das finde ich sehr schade, da das Missachten der Organisationskultur schnell zu einem Missverstehen führen kann und dann sogar zum Ende der Führungsrolle. Man spricht hier von Kultur-Fitness.

Die zweite Schwäche ist die unsaubere bis mangelnde Inhalts-Recherche für die Hacks. Für jeden der Hacks gibt es „Erfinder“, die entweder nicht erwähnt oder falsch benannt werden.

Hier ein paar Beispiele für unsaubere Recherche, die ich in vielen weiteren Hacks in ähnlicher Weise vorfand:

1. Im Hack 1 beschreibt die Autorin den „Als ob Rahmen“ Das ist eine bekannte Frage von Steve de Shazer die Wunderfrage. Es wirkt in dem Buch, als sei es ihre Idee, dabei gibt es einen klaren Autor, der meines Erachtens genannt werden sollte

2. Im Hack 3 wird die „Hüte Methode“ beschrieben. Diese kommen von de Bono und sind abgewandelt von den sechs Denkhüten

3. Im Hack 5 wird die SMART + V Methode erklärt, diese kommt von Georg T. Doran und nicht von Peter Drucker, der sie nur aufnahm, (siehe https://community.mis.temple.edu/mis0855002fall2015/files/2015/10/S.M.A.R.T-Way-Management-Review.pdf). Das ergänzte V ist eigentlich zudem überflüssig, da es im R schon enthalten ist. Hier die Übersetzung aus dem Original-Artikel: “Realistic: Geben Sie an, welche Ergebnisse angesichts der verfügbaren Ressourcen realistischerweise erzielt werden können.“ Realistisch ist für den Menschen nur das, was er visionieren, sich vorstellen kann. Dafür erschaffen wir schließlich Visionen, um uns eine realistische Zukunft vorzustellen. Durch das angehängte V geht auch der Sinn von Akronymen verloren. Da ein Akronym immer ein eigenes Wort darstellen sollte, das zum Thema passen sollte. SMART+V würde also der Methode das SMARTe / Clevere nehmen.

Wenn ich einen Ratgeber oder ein Fachbuch lese, finde ich es wichtig, dass eine saubere Recherche gemacht worden ist. Inhalte, die von anderen entwickelt worden sind, sollten in einem Buch als solche gekennzeichnet werden. Autoren gar nicht zu nennen, wie es bei der „Als-ob-Frage“ oder der gewaltfreien Kommunikation (ist von Rosenberg) geschehen ist, suggeriert dem Leser, dass der Erfinder dieser Methode unbekannt ist oder die Autorin selbst. Falsche Autoren wie bei SMART für Inhalte anzugeben, nur weil die ersten Einträge bei Google gleich (schlecht recherchiert worden) sind, reicht in meinen Augen nicht aus. Hier sollte die Autorin Zeit investieren, die wirkliche Quelle zu finden. Ich schreibe selber Fachbücher und ich versuche immer an Original-Quellen zu bekommen, das kostet viel Zeit, aber es ist einfach fairer den wahren Autoren gegenüber, sie als Urheber zu benennen. Inhalte, die von anderen Autoren kommen, so zu formulieren, als seinen es eigene Entwicklungen, empfinde ich unfair und unlauter.

Different personalities in each of us?!

The quote of the week comes from Swami Sivananda and reads as follows: “Everyone has different personalities that come to the fore like actors in different situations.”

Personalities that we show are context bound. This includes the four dimensions, mentioned by Lutz von Rosenstiel, to show a special behavior. The four levels are:

1. „Can I show the behavior“, i.e. have I acquired the skills to do so in the first place.

2. „Am I allowed to show the behavior“, i.e. which norms and rules prohibit or allow me to show certain behaviors

3. „Do I want to show the behavior“, we can decide not to show a certain behavior for good reasons, because e.g. we expect more work as a result of the changed behavior.

4. „If I have the opportunity to show the behavior“, i.e. if I am very good at moderating, I may never be allowed to take on the role. For this reason alone, we can act differently in different contexts.

Another reason is whether we feel accepted and respected in the situation. We recognize this very quickly through micro-facial expressions, eye contact, tone of voice and open or defensive gestures. Only when the autonomic nervous system calms down, we can act freely and authentically and not just reacting. This means that the atmosphere we create in a situation also determines the outcome.

A final third reason for these changed personalities lies in the past experiences and events that we have lived through. They lie in the subconscious and return to the conscious mind via emotions and feelings. Reactions based on past experiences that were successful at the time are always the first to be consulted by the brain as soon as similar situations arise. The feelings or emotions show us the way to the seemingly safe reaction we have learned. In the process, our own development and changes in personality are not “consulted”. This means that some reactions no longer fit, but still break through again and again and change the personality.

Yes, we have different forms of personality within us, depending on the situation and role. Something always emerges that belongs to the personality of the individual, sometimes it fits more with the past self, and sometimes it fits better with the present self.

What we think matters

Last week’s quote was from Andrew Carnegie. He said: „Remember, happiness does not depend on what you are or what you have, it depends on what you think.“

Andrew Carnegie was one of the richest people of his time. He certainly had few money worries and was able to occupy himself with other matters than meeting his basic needs. He was certainly respected and socialised with the most influential people of his time. He himself emigrated to the USA with his family as a child, as his father, a weaver in Scotland, had less and less to do due to industrialisation.

Carnegie got to know all kinds of personalities in his life, from ordinary people to aristocrats and high-ranking personalities. This enabled him to compare the different cultures and milieus. That’s why I find this quote so fantastic. He learnt the intrinsic value, in my interpretation, of the people who surrounded him. This led him to the conclusion that thinking, i.e. the inner processes of being, are more important than external factors such as status, rank and hierarchies.

Carnegie recognised that the only thing that counts is the inner world of the individual. Because what we think is visible in our attitude and this in turn determines our actions.

Our thoughts lead us to attract people into our lives who think similarly, as they have a similar attitude and their actions are similar. Through our thoughts, we have the power to be who we want to be and thus attract those we want to surround ourselves with.

Life goal: Reach your own inner summit

The quote of the last week from my calendar is from Edmund Hillary: „It is not the mountain we conquer, but ourselves.“

This reminded me of many hikes and some climbing routes that I have done in the past and will probably do in the future. I like to hike, even cross-country, as long as it’s allowed. The hikes that I personally found the most enjoyable were the ones where I had to force myself to keep going. Either because my body thought it can’t take any more, even though there were only a few hundred metres to go to reach the destination, the weather conditions were extreme, such as hiking at minus 20 degrees in the Elbe Sandstone Mountains, or hikes where I overcame my fear of heights, such as the climbing trail we took to the summit in Schladming.

Each time I overcame a fear, a limit within myself, and had a wonderful feeling after I had made it. Maybe my knees were still shaking a little, or I had unspeakable sore muscles the next day, but conquering myself brought me feelings of pride, confidence and self-assurance. The belief in the sentence „I can do it if I believe in myself, want to achieve it and have (trained) the skills to do so.“ In the context of others, the following dimension of what is allowed and desired in order to reach the set goal, the mountain top, also belongs.

This corresponds to Lutz von Rosenstiel’s behavioural model. (source: Rosenstiel, L. von 1998). Wertewandel und Kooperation. In E. Spieß (Hrsg.), Formen der Kooperation. Bedingungen und Perspektiven (S. 279-294). Göttingen: Verlag für angewandte Psychologie)

The model states that behaviour is influenced by:

  1. Individual volition, such as motivation and personal values,

  2. Social permissions and requirements, such as the norms and rules of the context/environment in which we find ourselves

  3. Situational facilitation, i.e. the conditions that can be conducive or inhibiting

  4. Personal ability, which includes skills and abilities. The four factors influence each other and together form the behaviour shown.

We conquer ourselves when we consider whether we want to try something different that we haven’t tried before, acquire the missing skills, abilities, and then actually put them into practice.

It doesn’t have to be a mountain. It could be also learning to play a musical instrument and then giving a concert, trying out a new sport in a competition or climbing a mountain summit.

Good is the better perfect

In my diary this week was the following quote from John Steinbeck: „And now that you don’t have to be perfect, you can be good.“ This quote got me thinking for a longer time. What is perfect? Who decides whether someone is perfect? As we all construct the world, which means we all interpret situations according to our experiences and memories, everyone would understand something different by perfect.

For example, an apple is perfect for one person if it is flawless and green. For another, an apple is perfect if it has red cheeks and a third finds the apple perfect if it has small spots, as it is then organic and natural.

How can there be, or is there, objective perfection at all? Is it perfection when everything is organised and straightforward? Isn’t chaos, the dynamic, what we need to bring change? Perfection cannot exist, because it is subjective and certainly not dynamic and therefore enable no changes. Being perfect means standing still. As the definition of perfect lies in the eyes oft he observer, the self must adapt and change in such a way that the observer can recognise perfection. This means the price of perfection is to mirrow the expectation of others and not to be yourself.

In my opinion, the solution lies in the second part of the quote: „You can be good.“ Since it is not possible to be perfect without losing yourself, each of us can try to be our own better self. The perfect lies hidden in the imperfect within ourselves. What we can do is to give our best every day by being mindful in the moment and always trying to activate the good that lies within each of us in the here and now. We can always dare and try to be the best and good version of ourselves. This requires a lot of courage, because the authentic self is much more vulnerable than an artificial self that changes in order to meet and fulfil the demands of the other person. So that the other person can recognise the perfect self that they have defined.

We should agree that being good is better and more dynamic than being perfect and is therefore much more promising for our self and our own growth.

What is your opinion?

Follow your path and listen to others and reflect

The weekly quote in my diary this week comes from Dante Alighieri: „Where the way is hardest, there go thou; Follow your own path and let people talk.“

It sounds so simple, but in my opinion it harbours many challenges.

The two challenges that I can recognise are

1. I agree to the quote in some esteem, as the other alternative is to get lost of your self. As then, you are simply not thinking about what is right, simply not forming your own opinion and disagree to the „stronger“ may make life easier. Through this behaviour, you can let your own life „ripple along“. It is then comparable to a stream that flows quietly but receives little attention. Walking your own path means giving it some thought, even bumping into things and perhaps feeling how others put their heads together when you walk past, and feeling sceptical glances. On the other hand, your own life is turbulent and more like a white-water river with bends and some unforeseen currents. Others will try to divert the river or slow it down, but the current is too strong.

2. Following your own path without considering the opinions and perhaps feelings of others. No matter how difficult the situation is, it can also make you lonely. It can also lead to self-centredness, as you only pursue yourself and your goal and turn people against you. It can also happen that you pursue your goal so much that you overlook the beauty around you or can no longer recognise the helping hands. Metaphorically speaking, the behaviour could resemble a raging waterfall. It is hardly possible for other larger life to survive in the falling water. The water rushes down indefinitely and has such a strong force that it could shatter boats on impact.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to a happy medium. We are all social beings. Finding your own path and following it, especially in difficult times, staying true to yourself is certainly important in order to be able to look yourself in the mirror day after day and also to be able to develop and grow. But walking this path in a mindful, non-judgemental and open attitude helps us to remain considerate. In this way, we can continue to see other needs without submitting or surrendering to them. In this way, we remain true to our values and will find a solution together with the people around us.

To stay with the image of the river, it is as if rivers flow together and then separate again. Every river has its own riverbed, but occasionally they cross.

I would modify the saying and add:

„Where the way is hardest, there go thou; go your own way meanwhile listen to people, when they talk about you. Reflect on what you have heard and adapt your chosen path, if it makes sense to you, without completely abandoning or giving up on your path.“