The year's talks to be abolished

Until the end of April you need to be in most of the companies are led, although you may hardly anyone and you are just an annoying Pro-forma-are usually Exercise: The year conversations. Why is it still held up to you?
The annual talks are a victory of the bureaucracy over the market dynamics, for the above reason. They are outdated, ponderous, and should be done away with.

Why is that?
you See, the idea of the year discussions arose in the Fifties, sixties in the context of the then-humanization of the working world. You had noticed that people talk too little with each other, although that would be important. It was also noted that this was due to the social Allergy of the superiors ...

... social Allergy?
Yes, most of the superiors were ascended officer. They had no desire to speak with employees. What you should not place the blame on them, because personal responsibility used to be the only way to make a career. Since everyone was of course in the company fail to be motivated. And at some point you had. also the last social Allergy to a Führungsjob Staff interviews were therefore a Form of repair intelligence.

What's so wrong?
In a forced, ritualized and standardized interview, everything is wrong. This is not a conversation, the humiliation of bureaucracy is, from both sides perceived as a nuisance. And in terms of content, it is anyway a disaster, because it serves the sole purpose to satisfy the autistic logic of the HR Department: if You look only inside the company, not to the outside. The customer has nothing. There are costs, the us out there on the market and in the quality of life of the customers do not have meters.

And when opportunities for improvement?
In a year of conversation, the Feedback will be given. Feedback is not but says something about the Feedback giver, the Feedback taker. The recipient gets to understand how he adapts to the best, what he needs to do in order to please the boss. The feed bakery is a huge conformity machine. The results are ruins of human Adaptation. So no one will win the competition in the future.

In work, we are a performance partnership, not a family.

they note in principle, an infantilization of the world of work. To what extent?
ask yourself: What is the Manager does not reject funding "as a woman", because she feels at a disadvantage and gender as a performance criterion holds for disabled? What kind of a man denied Coaching-measures that are often events for Processing unwanted masculinity behavior? Who insists on his autonomy, and can neither "values" nor "leadership style", "ID" impose? Who is on his health as a private thing which he wants from the company, "promote"?

to be at eye-level is large, many firms therefore lead to You.
something very Important is lost: the process of intimacy increase, or the intimacy of refusal. The grip and culturally naive. Especially, there is a communicative flattening in the service of a stuffy equality ideal. In work life, we are in a performance partnership, not a family.

superiors to give praise but, motivating, and Feedback – that sounds like a parent-child relationship. This goes in the same direction?
It creates a new image of society as a whole, I call it "Caring siege". Policy makers and companies to penetrate into areas that used to be called private life. This assault nature weakens the people, keeps you small. This is particularly observable in the case of the Generation of the snowflake, so the boys react strung on anything so delicate. The tilt already at the interview in a Burnout. In fact, however, they suffer from failure, poverty.

What is it?
No superlative seems large enough to give children a first inculcate, from which you can actually only down tumble. These children never hear: "That's not enough!" or "That was crap!" They grow up in a climate of Hovering – and that's exactly how you want to be treated later in the company. The also don't want any employees to be praised. Hardly anyone tells you that the work to feel good, but the performance and counter-performance.

Outlook Not so good.
The Situation will change again. As soon as the digitisation of scarce Jobs, strikes back the pendulum. Then this will be over sibilitäten very quickly put to one side. In addition, I am convinced that in all of us is a "happy workaholic" is that We want to move to work, achieve something, be something.

But until then, we should be adapted not only beautiful, but also totally positive.
Correctly. What is fatal, because the consequences can be devastating. I have friends in Los Alamos, New Mexico, where for the Nasa research. The Challenger disaster of 1986 is a recurring theme. The Drama was a consequence of the fact that no doubt were not allowed to be expressed, in order to be considered as negative. And so the wise heads said Yes to things that you could not approve, from a professional point of view. This was the main reason why it had come to disaster. Therefore: Nothing is worse for a company than highly customized, Yes-man.

you can learn to Manage it. The Lead of people tend to be.

Then it would have, but many companies are miserable, because, with all due respect: Where are you, Punks?
Smart people in dumb organizations, no Chance. Non-conformist even less. Either you lay down or go back. It would be worth to you to cherish: All of the services that we admire, all the people we find great, have never lost to the average reason. Therefore, I rate the company still is: you have to organize opposition! You must get people that bring an imbalance in. The are different! And you shouldn't reward people for compliance, but for Initiative.

Why dominate the slowpoke?
Take the example of the consulting companies. The search for explicitly "insecure overachievers," so anxious ambitious beings. The then executives, the hedge is permanent. "Cover your ass" is the name of the method. And the result is that the bureaucracy is bloated: Controlling, Compliance, HR and so on. So I don't want to say that these departments comply with unimportant tasks. But they distract from the Essential: the customer.

this Is not completely ecologically unsound?
As a radical capitalist, I say: There is a market for Bullshit.

you Can make it better, at least in the Small? And learn to be a good boss?
Manage you can learn. The Lead of people tend to be. You can't learn how to reach the hearts of people.

These are leadership courses, where you have to make under the guidance of role-playing games, and bring nothing?
the company has no education. No therapy agreement. But a cooperation agreement between adults. You should visit, therefore, not necessary for such courses. Except that somebody wants to tackle a concrete Problem.

If the biggest mistake of employers today is that employees are to mother constantly – what is the biggest error on the part of the employees?
That can be like that. Or even call in! It is perverse that employees expect the end to be of their superiors motivated as a student of your teacher. It is undignified to expect content that appears in the morning on time in the workplace, and it is relevant for rebate holds to move then also.

This Text is from the current issue. Now all of the articles in the E-Paper of the Sunday newspaper, read: App for iOS App for Android – Web-App (Sunday newspaper)

Created: 20.04.2019, 17:43 PM