Search results

In the discussion about agile transformations and postmodern organizations, there are positive voices that see the self-organization of teams, flatter hierarchies and a stronger customer focus as a way out of the outdated patriarchal system. These changes offer the opportunity for self-development for many employees, not just for a few privileged roles within the organization. But to realize these benefits, we also need to address the new challenges and risks. Today I would like to address two potential risks: the unclear distribution of roles and responsibilities and toxic customers when dealing with employees. Unclear distribution of roles and tasks An unclear distribution of roles and tasks often occurs when old, clearly defined hierarchical structures are broken up. In an environment where direct and unbureaucratic communication is possible at all levels, areas of responsibility can become blurred. This can lead to a new project being “imposed” on you in an informal discussion. What may seem tempting at first can, on closer inspection, create enormous pressure - after all, the day-to-day business also has to be done. This pressure is further intensified by a fear-lust mechanism: there is the hope of increased career opportunities, while at the same time there is the risk of burning out or losing a good reputation because you have overextended yourself. Here it becomes clear that structural boundaries are no longer in place, which employees now have to draw themselves - both on their own responsibility and in external communication. From an organizational perspective, this development may seem positive at first, as employees are intrinsically motivated to perform at their best. However, in order to prevent sick leave from piling up and the organization sinking into chaos because employees have misjudged their capacity limits, countermeasures should be taken urgently - such as individual coaching. Customer centricity as a challenge The second challenge relates to increased customer centricity. It seems to make rational sense to align products or services with the wishes and needs of customers. Consequently, employees in customer contact should also be empathetic and sensitive in order to recognize the needs of customers - especially as they often do not know exactly what they need themselves. In addition to special communication skills, employees are also expected to show empathy and adopt a humble and serving attitude. However, there is a problem here: many customers are aware of their important position and some of them abuse their power. They know that good employees should remain emotionally controlled and not react abusively. The dilemma is that employees are expected to be empathetic towards the customer - but at the same time remain unemotional in the event of personal attacks. Here too, support from the organization is needed: clear boundaries and binding procedures in the event that boundaries are crossed are essential. In-depth training in dealing with difficult customers also helps. Without support from the organization, however, abusive treatment of employees can arise, which has a negative impact on the corporate climate and ultimately also the corporate culture, and damages the entire organization. Bottom line In summary, the agile transformation and the associated changes in organizational structure bring both opportunities and challenges. While the self-organization of teams and flatter hierarchies offer the potential to foster employee creativity and empowerment, companies must also be vigilant to recognize and address the psychological stresses that can result from unclear role allocations and the pressures of excessive customer centricity. It is crucial that organizations are not only focused on the positive aspects of transformation, but also take proactive measures to support their employees and create a healthy working environment. Only through clear structures, training and a culture of respectful interaction can the full potential of agile approaches be realized. Ultimately, it is up to managers to find a balance between flexibility and stability in order to place both the needs of customers and the well-being of employees at the center of their strategic considerations. In this new era of collaboration, it is essential that organizations operate not only as economic entities, but also as social communities in which each individual is valued and has room for personal development.

Have you ever reacted atypically in a certain situation and asked yourself how this could have happened? You may have succumbed to the power of projective identification or a counter-transference reaction. Systemic-psychodynamic organizational consulting deals with these phenomena by transferring findings and methods from the therapeutic field to the work context. Transference, countertransference and projective identification are not only relevant in therapy, but also accompany us in everyday life. It is helpful to understand these processes as they influence our actions - often not in a positive way. 1. What is transmission? Transference refers to the reactivation of unconscious patterns of experience and behavior that were originally developed in relation to previous reference persons. These patterns are then transferred to a current person. Example: An employee transfers paternal, protective characteristics to their manager 2. What is countertransference? Countertransference is the usually unconscious reaction to the transference. It occurs when someone reacts unintentionally to the transference attributed to them. Example: The manager is more or less consciously aware of the trait that has been transferred to them and actually behaves in a protective manner towards the employee. 3. What is projective identification? In projective identification, a person splits off unwanted feelings or experiences and projects them onto others. The recipient of this projection perceives the feelings, identifies with them and acts accordingly. Example: An employee wants to be a fair person herself and does not allow herself to have her own unfair parts. She therefore splits off this part and projects it onto a manager. The manager unconsciously absorbs this projection, identifies with it and actually behaves unfairly. 4. In which work situations do these phenomena occur? Transference and counter-transference are almost always present. Managers in particular can activate old relationship patterns and have unreflected character traits attributed to them that are familiar from parents or teachers. Managers can only hope that these are positive experiences. Projective identification often occurs in stressful situations, such as work overload or change processes. If the resulting inner conflict is overwhelming, it provides relief to outsource the stressful parts. In this way, a structural problem - which should actually be solved at a structural level - can be shifted onto individuals or groups, who then have to act as scapegoats and are best eliminated. Of course, this does not solve the problem. Conclusion Systemic-psychodynamic organizational consulting offers valuable insights into the unconscious processes that influence our behaviour in the workplace. Transference, counter-transference and projective identification are everyday phenomena that affect managers in particular. An awareness of these dynamics can help avoid negative impacts on organizational culture and promote a healthy communication and work environment. It is crucial that managers learn to perceive their own emotions as well as those of their employees and interpret them as indicators of the state of the organization.

Culture is a man-made orientation system into which one is socialized. Within the national culture, there are many subcultures that also influence each other. And of course they also shape the individual. To make this easier to imagine, just take a look at the professional or industry culture or imagine what life you would lead if you had chosen a different profession. What impact would it have had on me if I had actually studied forensic psychology? In every industry and in every profession, values, manners, rules of conduct and views of life are established that have a formative effect over time. National culture, corporate culture or a couple's relationship are just as influential when common rules, moral concepts or even a unique language develop. The subconscious in national culture However, while we are still partially aware of our professional culture and are constantly reminded of it through contact with other professions, this is less often the case with national culture. We were socialized in it too early and we share this common orientation system with too many people, so that it eventually became self-evident, even natural, and therefore no longer fully conscious. It is only when you come into closer contact with foreign cultures and your own system of values and orientation is called into question that you become aware of yourself again. But often this does not happen either. The strange behavior of the other person is then simply judged as inadequate and linked to a more or less subliminal expectation that the other person must change and adapt to one's own orientation system. Due to early socialization, whose rules and values make living together in a community possible in the first place, it is assumed that the learned orientation system is correct and good and that deviations from it should be sanctioned in different ways. Culture has a meaningful relationship to context However, this does not take into account the fact that a culture always restricts freedoms and that a culture has developed meaningfully from its particular environmental factors, its context. For example, a well-developed, state-organized social system means that relationships are less important than in countries without state support. Now, in my opinion, this point of knowing the origin and meaning of a culture is of immense importance if you want to cultivate an appreciative relationship with other cultures. Only those who know the history or context of a culture can make a well-founded argument as to why certain values, norms and rules exist and why they make sense. If I then know the origins and meaning not only of my own culture, but also of the other culture, it is easy to see the other culture as meaningful, appreciate it and build a sustainable relationship. However, if I am not aware of my own culture and do not know its origin and therefore its meaning, it is difficult to deal with a foreign culture in a truly appreciative and tolerant way. In this situation, the different expectations, rules and values are very quickly played out on an emotional level, as there is no access to the factual level. Deep-rooted values that you somehow have, but can't really grasp and certainly can't explain, then feel attacked. And let's be honest, who doesn't know that the worse your own arguments are, the greater your emotions become. True to the motto: I know I'm right, even if I can't explain why! Recognizing the interactions between culture and context So if you want to do things differently, you should look at your own history. Search for the origins and meaningfulness of your own orientation system, both nationally and personally. Organizations should not randomly ascribe any desirable values to themselves, but should instead ruthlessly and honestly explore their values, which have emerged in interaction with the framework conditions. This would allow problematic patterns to be identified by the organization itself without having to hire consultants. And once the interactions between culture and context have been identified, it also becomes clear which adjustments need to be made.

Anyone who gives presentations, negotiations or sales talks in front of a foreign cultural audience, or simply wants to persuade people in general, should be aware of the fundamental cultural differences in argumentation. In 1983, Johan Galtung formulated four different styles of argumentation in "Structure Culture and Intellectual Style": the Saxon, Teutonic, Gallic and Nipponese. He did not want to specify in which countries these styles of thought and argumentation are represented, whether in pure form or even in rudimentary form, but noted that the respective centers are probably in the UK/USA, Germany, France and Japan. At the same time, he also pointed out that the individual styles may have converged as a result of globalization. Nevertheless, I believe that it can be helpful in one (professional) situation or another to know the basic approaches of the different styles. In addition, his humorous remarks made me smile, which I would like to share with you. The directly quoted passages are therefore highlighted in quotation marks and italics. Dealing with debates and discourse The saxonian style promotes and encourages debates and discourses by focusing on pluralism and allowing as many different positions as possible to have their say. In communication, care is taken at the beginning by praising the previous speaker with words of appreciation. However, the rest of the speech may then contain "many piercing points and biting remarks", while the conclusion should be conciliatory again. According to Galtung, this is particularly true for the UK, whereas in the USA, "even in the most miserable presentation, an attempt is made to find that little grain of gold which, that when polished, still produces a credible shine." The American would therefore always look for the positive, while the Brit puts the speaker in a defensive position, but with a conciliatory ending. In contrast, in Teutonic or Gallic discussions, the diversity of opinion is narrower and the audience more homogeneous. Polite phrases at the beginning or end of the speech are rather superfluous, especially if the previous speaker has a different opinion. There is also no searching for the spark of gold, but rather directly for the weak point which is then "taken apart with a dissecting knife". "Presumably the debate will be largely devoted to such aspects, and in the end there will be few, if any, soothing words to restore the accused as a human being; no attempt will be made to mop up the blood and patch up the bruised ego. Contrary to the saxsonian custom of humor and back-slapping on such occasions, here the look is rather cool, the expression fixed and there may be a trace of scorn and derision in the corners of the eyes." The Nipponese discussion differs considerably from this, as the top priority is to maintain social relations. Instead, what is said here is classified, assigned to a school, a master or a school of thought, which are then placed in relation to each other. Dealing with differences of opinion In the Saxsonian American debate, differences tend to be glossed over. The British Saxsonian debate at least tries to achieve a "general mood of agreement". In Teutonic and Gallic cultures, however, there is no concession. Here, people insist that their opinion is more correct than the other. That is why they do not debate with interlocutors who are too far removed from their own position, because "to take part in such a debate would be a waste of time... (One does not debate with half-humans, primitives or barbarians)". What is the foundation of the arguments The saxonian style relies on collected data, facts and statistics. Personal convictions do not play any role and what counts as a usable fact is clearly defined. The Teutonic and Gallic approaches, on the other hand, love good theories. Here, data is used more for illustration than for proof. True to the motto: don't trust any statistics that you haven't falsified yourself. A contradiction between theory and data is therefore not necessarily a threat to the theory. Instead of doubting the theory, doubts are first cast on the data, which was then collected incorrectly or is irrelevant. The developed theory, on the other hand, is the "real reality" and, as an ideal type, is free from the "impurities of empirical reality". The theory itself consists of a small number of premises which, through logical reasoning, finally arrives at an incontestable truth, which at the same time ties reality into a tight corset that no longer allows any deviations. However, since deviations are to be expected more frequently than the theory would allow, the Teutonic thinker speaks of the ideal type. The Gallic thinker, on the other hand, tries to look at the theory from all possible angles using elegantly chosen words, such as ambiguities, until he can ultimately identify poles that are in opposition to each other and in the middle of it he can let his theory hover in balance. The fact that theories take such a clear position and do not allow ambiguity is contrary to the Nipponese approach and is incompatible with Hindu, Buddhist and Daoist thinking. Their holistic approach does not break reality down into individual parts in order to form a theory. "You cannot recognize - and thus comprehend - one element without recognizing or comprehending the others." Therefore, "absolute, categorical statements are avoided; they prefer vagueness even for trivial things." Why the Teutonic thinker must not allow himself any mistakes Finally, I would like to refer to another quote that gives an idea of the major impact something as inconspicuous as the style of reasoning can have on the way we live. Or has lifestyle shaped the style of argumentation? One probably determines the other and if one aspect of it changes, everything will change. What is your opinion? Do we still correspond to pure styles or has a mutual adaptation already taken place? But now to the promised quote: "Should anything prove invalid, should a thesis be falsified, should a proposition arrived at however it may have been arrived at prove untenable for whatever reason - this does not lead to any major catastrophes in the other three styles. For the Sachsonian intellectual, at most a single pyramid is destroyed, and he can immediately begin to construct another small pyramid from the rubble. The Nipponese intellectual has, if anything, an extremely flexible wheel that turns through all kinds of facts. The Gallic intellectual will usually be able to conceal his difficulties behind another elegant formulation that is ambiguous enough and perhaps a little pompous, but in the end earns him the certificate "votre presentation magistrale". The purely Teutonic intellectual is not in such a fortunate position: he bears the risk of possibly having to watch his pyramid fall to pieces. It is therefore no wonder that he tackles his work with a certain inner nervousness, expressed in tense muscles and a face from which the last trace of humor and distance has disappeared. No anecdote, no analogy, no euphony and no playful juggling of meanings - nothing can disguise the disaster that can befall a Teutonic pyramid; and if it collapses, the intellectual investment of an entire lifetime can fall with it."

I have already experienced it during the two years I spent in Australia. This was not the case during my shorter work stays in Italy and Spain. However, I think my sudden termination of my stay in Portugal was also due to culture shock. Although I enjoyed life in Lisbon and had built up a great social network there, I was not happy with the work culture. In fact, this experience had such an impact on me that I decided to study business psychology at the University of Bremen afterwards. What exactly is culture shock? Culture shock is triggered by negative experiences abroad and usually does not occur immediately, but only after a certain amount of time. At the beginning, enthusiasm usually prevails, but when everyday life sets in, the negative aspects of the foreign culture become apparent. This can then lead to a more or less pronounced culture shock. If this crisis can be overcome, adaptation to the foreign culture usually follows, often followed by a more differentiated view of the local culture. However, this also increases the likelihood that, in the event of a return trip and after initial enthusiasm, a reintegration crisis will occur again in the home country. What influences culture shock? Whether and how severe the culture shock will be depends on various factors: - Your own ability to cope with stress - The perceived discrepancy between the home culture and the host culture - The extent of the change in life in terms of role expectations and task fulfillment - The loss of status - The perceived helplessness measured by the degree of integration efforts and yet experienced failures - The presence of social support - The strength of homesickness - If the stay abroad is involuntary - Depending on the expected length of the stay Which areas of life are affected by culture shock? How and where someone experiences culture shock and for what reasons varies from person to person. Your own values certainly play a major role here and the extent to which they can be lived in the host country. Furthermore, my work experience in Portugal shows that culture shock can only affect certain areas of life. For example, only in the work area, but not in private life, or vice versa. The importance of culture shock for managers and HR staff Even though the term culture shock is usually used to describe crises during stays abroad, it can also occur when changing jobs. Here, too, it can be assumed that initial enthusiasm will prevail at the beginning. However, if the new employee now realizes that the rules and processes in the new company differ from their previous company and they have to struggle with adjustment difficulties, this comes very close to a culture shock. This is exacerbated if the rules, structures, processes and values are unclear, opaque or paradoxical. However, with a sensitized onboarding and appropriately trained managers, the employee can be well supported in his crisis, in contrast to the foreigner who is left to his own devices. Alternatively, a business coach can also help.

Welcome to Madlen's culture blog Foreign countries, cultures, languages and an exciting togetherness. As the founder of Riera Intercultural Consulting, I have dedicated myself entirely to interculturality and am still fascinated by the different rituals, traditions, customs and traditions of this world. In my blog, I would like to share this fascination with you and also expand your intercultural competence. I would like to invite you to cross the boundaries of your own cultural imprint and discover the impossible that lies beyond. Let yourself be irritated and smile about some intercultural misunderstandings.

In intercultural contact, English is often used as the preferred language to enable cross-cultural communication. Nevertheless, the use of a common language harbors dangers of which one should at least be aware: The culture of a nation is not only reflected in values, traditions, rituals and patterns of action, but also in the national language. The sound and phonology of a language have an influence on an individual's cultural identity, as does the sentence structure, which varies from culture to culture. For example, Chinese people always mention the context first before talking about themselves, whereas English or German sentences prefer to start with their own person. A German would explain his delay as follows: "I was late because the train was late", while a Chinese person might answer contextually: "Because of the construction work due to the storms last night, the train was late." Other differences can also be seen in non-verbal communication such as eye contact, body touch, distance and tone of voice. However, these seemingly banal differences should not be underestimated. If people are unaware of such communication differences, intercultural cooperation can be permanently disrupted. It is often not obvious communication differences, but subtle differences that remain unrecognized and cause resentment. For example, in the interaction between "low-context" and "high-context" cultures. The former prefer clear and explicit communication in order to avoid misunderstandings, while the latter leave more room for interpretation and use non-verbal signals. In addition to Asian countries, southern European countries such as Italy, Spain and France also prefer high-context communication. Germans, on the other hand, prefer precise communication. This small difference in communication often goes undetected and leads to annoyance and resentment. For example, when Germans feel that they have not quite understood what their counterpart was trying to say or when a French colleague complains that Germans talk to him as if he were stupid. These examples show that a good knowledge of the company's internal language alone is not enough to communicate successfully. Rather, the subtleties such as polite phrases and idiosyncrasies of the other language should be known so that misunderstandings can be recognized and insults avoided.