In negotiations, whether we realize it or not, our cooperation increases the size of the pie for everyone (creates value) and our defection defines our slice of it (claims value).

We often develop imaginative ways to create value through the promise of mutual gains and introduce these ‘carrots’ into our negotiation strategy at the appropriate point as to maximize their impact and benefit.  As it relates to cooperation and the use of carrots, most of us consider ourselves fairly effective with this approach. 

What happens when the other party isn’t cooperating, however?  Are we as effective at bringing them back to the bargaining table?   Are we as capable of putting the deal back on the tracks?

Quite simply, what happens when they say no when we really want them to say yes?  How do we move them to our way of thinking?  That is the art of negotiation.  The art of letting *them* have *your* way.

Former Secretary of State James Baker once famously said (and I’m paraphrasing here), Diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggie long enough until you can find a big rock with which to smash it in the head.  If there is no rock, negotiation is pointless…  How many of us negotiate without a rock?  I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had a client say we’re just going to tell our supplier we want to buy their stuff, but we need a better price.  I nod politely and ask, “or what”?  Puzzled, they ask, what do you mean “or what”?  I explain, and what if they say no?  What if they say this is the best possible discount they are able to offer you?  What will you do then? 

You see, the “or what” is the rub.  Gee Mr. Supplier, we’d like you to give us a better discount.  If you’re not prepared to answer the “or what”, you are just Oliver Twist asking for more.  Seemingly, we are much less prepared to correct behaviors that are counter-productive to our goals and objectives.  The use of ‘sticks’ in a negotiation is every bit as important as carrots, and in many cases, much more so.  When one party cooperates and the other party defects, the defecting party claims value.  When both parties defect, not only is no value created, no value is claimed either.  It stands to reason then, that you can prevent the defecting party from claiming value by defecting.  Sometimes the best way, perhaps the only way to bring a defecting party back to the bargaining table is to defect yourself.

Easier said than done?  Defection in a negotiation is often viewed with a negative connotation, and is also often confused with the end objective.  Some view it as confrontational or even as threatening.  Regardless of how it’s viewed, a defection strategy is often justified.  Defecting from a negotiation can be extremely effective in situations where a supplier is reaching or over playing their hand.

In one case, NET(net) was working with a client who had two viable solutions for a business need, and the preferred supplier overplayed their preference status to the tune of a 40% premium price over the competition.  The client told the preferred supplier that the current price made it impossible for them to be selected, but the supplier refused to lower their price, believing that the client was bluffing.  Instead of haggling, the client sent a polite thanks but no thanks letter, and went into unilateral negotiations with the alternative supplier with the full intent to get a deal done.  The preferred supplier returned the next business day with a market leading price and improved terms and conditions.  This led us to coin the negotiation axiom, “sometimes the fastest way to a yes is to say no”.  This client didn’t bluff.  They had every intention to do the deal with the alternative supplier and the preferred supplier knew it.  It’s not gaming or brinkmanship; it’s defection.  To be effective, it has to be credible, it has to be timed right, and it has to be sequenced appropriately.  When it’s done right, it works.

While we are mostly inclined to be cooperative and we all work hard to find ways to increase the value and mutual gains for all parties involved in a negotiation, the use of sticks on a quid-pro-quo basis is an extremely effective way to control the bargaining table.  Defections from negotiations are sometimes the best and perhaps the only way to break the cycle of supplier lock-in and the incumbency effect of entitlement rights.  See future blog posts on these and other topics.

Everyone has flashbacks. A baby’s hands touch your face and you feel that sweet tug in your chest. A sip of green tea and tears come to my eyes as I re-experience my first felt kindnesses. Or maybe the scent of diesel fuel wafts by, and for no remembered reason a wash of hot hatred or burning anger follows. Flashbacks reflect important learning moments of our past and they function deep below the logical level of our brains; it’s part of how we learn.

Some psychologists are trying to understand flashbacks, but what is there to measure? Most people don’t even know what’s happening until it’s over, and nobody can rationalize a flashback, it’s buried so deep in the history of our own brain. It’s why I don’t watch TV, or only very selectively. To protect myself from the hate-filled, war-based flashbacks that our culture is trying to implant in us and in our victims. It’s why I won’t give money to any cause, no matter how good, if they try to pry it out of me with hatred or fear. Or as a lady in the library confirmed the other day: “Don’t give away your power.”

And it’s why I keep watch, every day, for beautiful moments to photograph. The good ones I can hang on my wall; the very best ones are stored in my memory, because they are impossible to photograph — sometimes because, like the green tea, they live deeper than either words or images — other times they flash by too fast or we don’t really see what happened until it’s over. That’s when a story is worth 1000 pictures. This one happened in a supermarket.

My friend was buying baby food (as it happened, for a parrot). He surveyed the racks, carefully selecting the sorts of things that are best for baby parrots and occasionally dropping one or two little round jars of baby food into a bag. You know the kind, a reusable cloth shopping bag. For the most part these shopping bags are a good idea to cut down on plastic or paper bags that end in the trash, but I don’t use them in-store for fear someone will think I’m shoplifting, and that is just what happened. Not the store patrol, but a lady down the aisle, who had been watching my friend selecting, as she thought, food for his baby, and hiding it away in the shopping bag. What would you do if you saw this happening? What she did was to very quietly come up beside my friend, gently put a hand on his arm, and offer to buy food for his baby.

I know it ruins the story to tell you the moral, but as I think about the problem-solving skills of our primary culture (win or lose, no other options) I wonder how many different ways you can imagine this woman could have reacted to the perceived theft. In addition to the win/lose call-the-cops solution I can think of about five other things she could have done to soothe her conscience and try to right the perceived wrong. I can not think of any that are better than the one she chose — a win/win/win/win solution.

Of course it could have blown up in her face if my friend had not responded in kind. But what’s a win without a risk?

Some call Nets Owner Mikhail Prokhorov lucky. I'd just call him rich.

After losing their 10th consecutive game to start the 2009-10 season, the New Jersey Nets elected to buy their first win.

Mikhail Prokhorov, the Russian billionaire who is very close to a deal to purchase majority ownership of the Nets franchise, paid the NBA $10 million for the victory – or what he spends on a posh party during a typical weekend.

“First we’ll buy wins,” Prokhorov said. “Eventually we’ll be able to buy championships, then the NBA. Just watch.”

Cleveland Cavaliers swingman LeBron James may be the offseason’s hot commodity, but Prokhorov isn’t interested in bidding for the budding superstar.

“What’s the point?” said Prokhorov. “We don’t need Lebron. In fact, we don’t need anyone. All you need as money. It buys everything… parties, girls, wins, championships and happiness.”

New Jersey, which was on the verge of becoming the first team in NBA history to go winless over the course of an 82-game season, will have significant cap space in the offseason.

However, according to Prokhorov, the team will instead elect to spend it on future wins.

“There’s no point in paying someone to play when I can just do everything myself,” Prokhorov said.
NBA Commissioner David Stern, who accepted the deal, is facing heavy criticism from the rest of the league for taking – what is considered by many – to be a bribe.

“Economic times are tough for everyone,” Stern said. “I’ll take what I can get, even if it means losing any of my league’s integrity. After all, we never really had any anyway.”

In one of the classes that I’ve regularly facilitated, we do an activity called “The Parking Space.”  Participants are given a role-play scenario in which two people have to compete for a single parking space.  One person is running late for a job interview, and the other is running late for a meeting with an important client.  As one tries to back into the parking space, the other is trying to pull forward into it.  The two people get out of their cars and negotiate to see who gets the space.

What’s really interesting about the interaction isn’t who gets the space or even how they get it (and I’ve heard some really creative and unethical methods of coercion).  It’s that in the process of overpowering their adversary for the space, both people completely forget what their primary goals were – getting the job or making the meeting.  It never dawns on them that time is ticking away as they bicker about who gets to park where.  Each person fights for a win-lose outcome, but what they end up with is lose-lose, because the parking space is moot by the time they miss their respective appointments.

The role-play is an excellent example of sacrificing a Big “G” Goal (making the appointment) in order to achieve a little “g” goal (getting the parking space).  It sounds crazy, but we do it all the time.

• We pull out all the stops to win the argument but forget that we are trying to build the relationship.
• We prevent our top performers from transferring to other departments in order to protect our team’s productivity and end up losing them because there is no room for advancement.
• We refuse to share information with another group because they haven’t reciprocated in the past and lose sight of the fact that we work for the same company.
• We cut services back in order to reduce expenses and succeed in chasing off our customers.
• We invent rules for a small percentage of “law-breakers” and ultimately punish the 99.9% of people who want to do the right thing but can’t get anything done because of the excessive red-tape.
• We turn drill sergeant with our kids to get them ready in the morning and manage to ruin everyone’s day as we head out the door for a family event.
• We argue with our neighbors over property rights and forget that we were trying to win them to Christ.

Our problem is that we are so focused on what’s before us that we can’t see the big picture.  We are intent on winning battles, but our short-term focus is losing us the wars.  If we could keep our eyes on the Big “G” Goals, what a difference it would make in our lives, in our work and in our ministries!

We would have so much more grace for people who don’t act the way we want them to act.   We would be able to keep a healthy perspective on the minor things that don’t go our way.  We would make better decisions in the moment as we assessed the impact of those decisions on our Big “G” goals.

Where is it that you have gotten seduced by the urgency of little “g” goals?  How could you maintain your focus on the the bigger picture?  A long-range focus informs better decision making in the moment.  It takes practice, but if you’re like me, you’ve got plenty of opportunities.

Heute einen besonderen Beratungstermin wahrgenommen: eine Verbundgruppe hat mich gebeten, einen Termin bei einem ihrer Mitglieder wahrzunehmen. Aufgrund des starken Umsatzwachstums des Mitglieds sind die Lieferantenverbindlichkeiten der Kooperation mittlerweile stark gestiegen – die Kooperation will diese Position wieder abbauen. Mittlerweile sind Kooperation und Kooperationsmitglied voneinander abhängig. Kündigt die Kooperation den Lieferantenkredit, dann kann der Händler diesen nicht zurück zahlen. Die Zahlungsunfähigkeit des Mitglieds ist vorprogrammiert. Die Folgen für die Kooperation sind ebenso gravierend: sie würde einen ihrer besten Umsatzträger verlieren und bei fehlender Zahlungsfähigkeit ihres Mitglieds selber in Zahlungsschwierigkeiten geraten. Beide Seiten erwarten vom Berater, das er sich auf jeweils “ihre Seite” schlägt und das Problem in ihrem Sinne löst.

Was ist das Problem dabei? Für mich als außenstehenden Berater ist klar (für Sie als Leser vermutlich auch), das die beiden ihr Problem nicht gegeneinander sondern nur miteinander lösen können. Soweit sind beide aber noch nicht. Dafür steht auf beiden Seiten noch zu viel auf dem Spiel. Und der Veränderungsdruck ist noch nicht groß genug, als das sich einer von beiden bewegen müsste. 

Wie ist die Situation lösbar? In der Theorie sehr einfach: Wird eine Lösung gefunden, die dem Kooperationsmitglied am nächsten kommt, handelt es sich dabei um Verlierersituation für die Zentrale. Und genauso umgekehrt. Wenn Sie in einer Matrix die beiden Achsen mit “Zentrale” und “Mitglied” benennen und die jeweiligen Ausprägungen auf der Achse als “Win” und “L0se”, dann können Sie schnell erkennen, das der Sieg des Einen die Niederlage des Anderen bedeutet. Sieht so Kooperation aus? Sicher nicht.

Anstatt sich auf den Achsen “Win-Lose” zu bewegen (und damit einen “faulen” Kompromiss zu schließen), ist es erforderlich, einen neuen Raum zu betreten, den sogenannten Chancen-Raum. Er liegt außerhalb der beiden Achsen und damit außerhalb der gängigen Lösungen. Wir haben heute damit angefangen, solche Lösungen zu suchen. 

Ich wünsche Ihnen viel Erfolg dabei, bei Konflikten Ihren Chancenraum zu suchen.

A New Archetype arises for healing

A study of the Archetype is the symbolic revealing of some hidden, unknown entity which presents itself for further understanding and spiritual application.

Taking it to the mattresses…

Here we find the Pleading Victim archetype as it speaks from the  land of OZ!

On-Air Checkup 330 Men and Dr. Oz

http://www.oprah.com/dated/oprahshow/oprahshow_20071001

Today’s Oprah Show:

What men really want to know about their health but are afraid to ask in front of their wives.

“Since so many men are afraid to go to the doctor, and embarrassed to ask health questions in front of the women in their lives, Dr. Oz is conducting a private forum for the 330 men in the audience—even the crew is made up entirely of men. So where are the women headed? The women who accompanied their husbands are upstairs in a screening room with Oprah!”

Here’s the short list of their real concerns:

1. Broken Penis
2. To Circumcise or not to Circumcise
3. Penis: The Dipstick of the Love Life
4. Erectile Dysfunction
5. Vasectomy and Sensitivity
6. Urination Left-Overs
7. Testicular Cancer

Wow! Which HEAD are they thinking with?  AWAKEN TO A WIN-WIN PARADIGM!

Checkup on the National level:

Here we see this same Pleading Victim archetype as it speaks from the White House!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23906_Page3.html

How Obama could lose health fight!

A bullet-point list from Yahoo’s HEAD Liner Story:  (by Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei, June 19, 2009 07:36 AM EST)

President Obama’s campaign for health care reform by this fall… appears [to be] in real jeopardy …due to worse-than-expected estimates for how much the plan could cost …

1. “Fool’s Gold” — an unattainable waste of time. Money troubles — Obama is emphasizing what he calls “savings” — otherwise known as cuts — that would help pay for his plans.
2. A crowded stage — Everyone has big ideas for changing the health care system  …having waited years… to put their stamp on it.
3. “It’s too soon to be cracking heads,” said one administration official.
4. False hope — …Obama and business interests were searching for common ground. But this was always somewhat of a charade. It was in the political self-interest of Obama and the business community to go through the motions of working together — even while reserving the option to go to war.
5. Big bang backfire – Big chaos backlash: A Summer Organizer Program! “SEND ME YOUR MONEY!” “Please donate whatever you can afford to support the campaign for real health care reform in 2009,” pleads an e-mail purporting to come directly from “President Barack Obama.”
6. The enemy smells blood — Public concerns with heavy government spending are rising. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found more people want the focus to be on deficit reduction, not new spending to boost the economy.
7. Republicans came out with the outlines of their own plan this week. …They know they win by Obama losing.

And which Head are they thinking with?   AWAKEN TO THE WIN-WIN PARADIGM!

Personal Checkup Time!

How has this archetype expressed in your world?

Romance and ‘The Spirit of Trickery’ (notes from my studies of HPB)

The state of human character revealing the smugness of self-sufficiency of those who have some notion of their own cleverness. Here also is the remarkable warmth of fidelity to life in its idyllic condition. An individual of strong character is faithful and patient. An individual of weak character is cunning and short-tempered. Both, however, may be baffled, as is always that lack of understanding in the face of any active idealism or higher concept of life and purpose.

Here lay the pitfalls of romance! The cunning individual flirts and captures the heart of the one who will willingly exchange his or her own lack of self-initiative, i.e. any purposeful acquisition born from within, thereby falling prey or victim instead of filling the role of that being sought rather than being the seeker. The result is a relationship of possession by heart and spirit.

From the outer viewpoint of those witnessing such romances, the fallacy, cunning and surrender at the inception may be seen, but matters of the heart being untouchable, the best to be done is to find what advantage may be had of both participants now so involved, for both at core are good and clean, irrespective of their superficial natures, which yet qualifies any attempt for harmonious outer relations.

Granted, the broader awareness of karmic play would permit peaceful understanding by Divine Justice; however, without such access, one and all must let go and let God in such situations. There will be now seen the expansion of both retribution and compensation of such cycles of love and romance in this phase of experience and circumstance.

Always it is the initial compromise—the one of beguiling, as well as that of unmerited self-sacrifice of initiative—which will be the source of unlimited further troubles. Mollified by the warm promise of an idyllic future, the experience forever present will be one of barrenness and difficulty until the cycle is broken. This results when either one o the other—ideally both—retract the initial compromise and take back their divine powers of character, thereby affording a maturation of selfhood upon which future actions toward romance and love may be based: A WIN-WIN RELATIONSHIP…

Look here for healing work today:  The Shadow of the Pleading Victim—the hope-for-a-handout archetype–has spoken.

The Message of One White Feather

The Return of the Divine Feminine is that healing message in the World…Healing the Pleading Victim archetype…with the Nō Mask approach–a holistic pathway to calming the self-pity and victim-mentality which would be rescued. To transform this Shadow back to the Light of highly individual and completely unlimited resourcefulness. The Divine Feminine would now come with healing in her wings to attend our unhealed wounds.

Sexuality issues remain in the forefront. There is an O-Woe-Is-Me! energy about. Rebellion has turned to whining and supplication. Am I not loved? Won’t someone rescue me? Why aren’t you giving me what I want? Yet there is here the reluctance to deal with known facts—a tendency to give up the known hoping for a better unknown, rather than to step forward into the unknown with that sure foundation of what is already known.These are the unhealed aspects of our natures—both masculine and feminine—which now come forth in order to ask for understanding and healing so that our reoriented expressions and articulations may be those born of transparent and unconditional love, sure footing and the spirit of self-sufficient forward adventure.This day’s call to shadow work will bring about those physical manifestations requesting greater healing–that unhealed wound which would now bring us to greater self-understanding.

A time for reflection, meditation and prayer!

New Methodology of Study in Shadow Work: The Sabian Symbols

The following is a highlight of today’s potential for healing the shadow archetype’s influence to reorient it to the light. Utilizing the untapped resource of the Sabian symbols, an area of study in which Saijin is quickly gaining attention, major impacts in Healing Work are presented in dealing with this Archetypal emergence:

Pleading Victim

Shadow Work

Here is the primary component of Shadow Work to be accomplished in this phase:

A child born of an eggshell.

ESSENTIALITY

The Shadow Self arrives in Its negative orientation, requesting healing:

When negative, the degree is naïve reliance on external accident.

When healed this Shadow Self would become positively oriented as:

When positive, the degree is a highly individual and completely unlimited resourcefulness.

This is the further understanding of change:

This is a symbol of the infinite regression in all personal reality, not as a fact of some mysterious loss of self either in source or in final dissolution but as a demonstration of the illimitable potentialities to be found in each immediate moment of self-realization. For his own enlightenment a man may project himself indefinitely into what has been or what may be but his assurance is in the ever-present sustainment of the auric egg or self-matrix in which existence continues to create itself in its own image. The Sabian Symbols in Astrology by Dr. Marc Edmund Jones

The Being of Light now emerges to Heal:

The constellations of stars shine brilliantly in the night sky.

Love at first bite...

SURETY

This is its power to aid in healing:

When positive, the degree is consistent effectiveness in understanding and self-ordering.

This is the further understanding of change:

This is a symbol of the infinite regression in all universal reality, not as a fact of some unreachable end in knowledge but rather as a demonstration that any abandonment of the known for the sake of the unknown is fruitless. The cosmos is illimitable in the sense that man’s questing may ramify in time and space to the extent of any given pertinence, but his assurance lies within his own being and experience. The stars are his confirmation, never his explanation. The Sabian Symbols in Astrology by Dr. Marc Edmund Jones

NOW is always the Moment of True Power!

"The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame..."

From Addictive to Enlightened Relationships

Can we change an addictive relationship into a true one?

“Yes,” says author Eckhart Tolle, “Being present and intensifying your presence by taking your attention ever more deeply into the Now. Whether you are living alone or with a partner, this remains the key. For love to flourish, the light of your presence needs to be strong enough so that you no longer get taken over by the thinker or the pain-body and mistake them for who you are. To know yourself as the Being underneath the thinker, the stillness underneath the mental noise, the love and joy underneath the pain, is freedom, salvation, enlightenment. To disidentify from the pain-body is to bring presence into the pain and thus transmute it. To disidentify from thinking is to be the silent watcher of your thoughts and behavior, especially the repetitive patterns of your mind and the roles played by the ego.” The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle, pp. 153-154

Application of Today’s Message

Any occurrence or recurrence of this Pleading Victim archetypal nature which presents itself in life issues is an indication, suggestion and invitation to change, transformation, or evolution—to think of forward movement in life self-sufficiently and also as Win-Win.  These instances—whether evoked consciously or in the dream state—are particularly worth of a more in-depth focus which will benefit personal healing and a greater conscious awakening. Honor the Archetypal presences which appear in your life. They are your invitation for greater healing and a richer, more rewarding experience of life.

For a deeper study of this archetype, Pleading Victim, Saijin offers an additional self-study packet of information. Please email your request to Saijin@saijinonline.com and mention the archetype: Archetype 173—Pleading Victim. Cost: $5. Subscriptions are also available.

About the Author:

Saijin is the mother of six. She resides in Dallas, Texas and is an avid writer, symbologist and author. Her recently published first work, On the Shoulders of Giants: Advanced Techniques in Sabian Symbology, is receiving excellent reviews, such as the following by leading world authority in this area of Astrology, Lynda Hill, who resides in Australia, and who is now in the States on her 25th lecturing tour:

“With her wonderful book On The Shoulders of Giants, Saijin has contributed to the growing excitement and work on the amazing Sabian Symbols. This book will be a very useful resource for many for seeing the patterns of the degrees of the zodiac through the lens of the Symbols. Saijin says: ‘The powers that be will work with whatever system we provide for them to communicate with us’. This is so very true and if we see this for what it truly means, we can see the magic in life all around us. The Sabian Symbols are a work of art kindly bequeathed to us through Marc Edmund Jones and Elsie May Wheeler and Saijin’s book is a wonderful addition to the work.”

“What if Americans of all ages, races, backgrounds and beliefs could come together in a series of national conversations on topics of significant importance to the nation? What if we could create a listening and learning environment through structured conversations to lead us to better understand one another, establish common ground and transform ideas into action? What if all of us had a role in making this a reality?”

It’s as certain as sin that we will spend our future forever fearfully circling each other, like Voldemort and Harry Potter, unless we find some way break the win/lose pattern of our toxic culture and talk among ourselves like real people. Believe it or not, there is a way that is well researched, well established and well known in business circles. Check out Promise USA if you are genuinely interested in accomplishing a better future.

Time
20-30 minutes

Description
This game helps participants understand different responses to conflict.  (You can also use this as a game to illustrate the different strategies in negotiation.)

Audience
Children, youth, adults

Materials
•    Beads (20 per person plus 40 per group – in other words, if you have six people in a group, you will need 160 beads – 20 per person and 40 to go in the middle).  You can also use coins, rice, beans… anything that you have lots and lots of.
•    Dice (one per group – I recommend fuzzy dice.  They are more fun to play with.)
•    Flipchart or whiteboard
•    Marker
•    Copies of the “Debrief Questions” page at the end of this lesson
•    (Optional) A prizes(s) for the winning team(s)

Preparation
•    Make copies of the “Debrief Questions” page at the end of this lesson (one copy per table group).
•    Count out the beads, and put enough for the gate at each table.
•    Put a die at each table.
•    Write the following on a flipchart or whiteboard:
o    1 – Win-Win (Everyone gets 1 bead from center.)
o    2 – Win-Lose (Everyone gives you 1 bead.)
o    3 – Lose-Win (You give everyone 1 bead.)
o    4 – Lose-Lose (Everyone puts 1 bead in the center.)
o    5 – Compromise (You give 1 bead to the center and pick 2 other people to put one bead in the center.)
o    6 – You Choose (Choose your own conflict response, and do what it says.)
•    Practice the script.

Procedure
Use the following script (or modify to suit your needs):
•    (Divide the participants into table groups of 4-6 people each.)
•    “We’re going to play a game that will illustrate peoples’ different responses to conflict.”
•    “Different people respond in different ways when they come into conflict.”
•    “Many go for ‘Win-Lose.’  ‘I win; you lose.’  They want to win the conflict even if it means that the other person has to lose.”
•    “Many others go for ‘Lose-Win.’  ‘I lose; you win.’  They just let the other person win, because they don’t like conflict or confrontation.  It’s easier just to give up the fight.”
•    “Some go for ‘Compromise.’  ‘We both lose some of what we wanted, but at least we get a resolution to the conflict.’  Neither party gets exactly what they wanted in ‘Compromise,’ but the conflict gets resolved or the task gets done.  Sometimes that’s enough.”
•    “Some even go for ‘Lose-Lose.’ ‘I lose; you lose.’  This one seems crazy, but people will often choose this response when they are upset that they can’t win.  It’s like they are saying, ‘If I can’t have what I want, I’ll make sure no one gets what they want!’”
•    “And a very few people go for ‘Win-Win.’  ‘I win; you win.’  I say very few people go for it, because it’s very difficult to do.  It takes patience, creativity and a willingness to truly listen and understand to the other person before making a decision.  However, this is usually the best response to conflict, because everyone gets what they want (or even something better).”
•    “On your table, you have lots of beads.”
•    “I would like for everyone at the table to count out 20 beads for himself or herself.”  (Wait for everyone to count out his or her beads.  There should be at least 40 left in the middle of the table.)
•    “The game we are about to play is called, ‘Win-Lose,’ and your objective is to win.”
•    “The person at the table who first collects 40 beads is the winner.”
•    “You gain or lose beads by rolling the die (singular for dice) and doing one of six things listed on the flipchart / whiteboard.”
•    “If you roll a one, you choose a Win-Win response to conflict, and everyone at the table benefits by getting a bead from the center.”
•    “If you roll a two, you choose a Win-Lose response to conflict, and everyone gives you one of their beads.”
•    “If you roll a three, you choose a Lose-Win response to conflict, and you give everyone at the table one bead.”
•    “If you roll a four, you choose a Lose-Lose response to conflict, and everyone had to put a bead back into the center.”
•    “If you roll a five, you choose a Compromise response to conflict, and you need to put a bead in the center.  You will also pick two other people to put a bead in the center.”
•    “If you roll a six, you get to pick your conflict response.  You then have to do what the flipchart / whiteboard says for that conflict response.  For example, if you choose ‘Win-Lose,’ then you should collect a bead from everyone at the table.”
•    “To determine who goes first, you will each roll the die.  The highest roll goes first.  If you have a tie for the highest roll, have just those people continue to roll to determine who goes first.”
•    “After the first person goes, the person on his/her left will go next, and play will continue clockwise around the table.”
•    “Play continues until someone accumulates 40 beads.  That person is the winner.”
•    “Does anyone have any questions about how to play?”  (Answer questions.)
•    “Okay, then you can start rolling the die to see who goes first.”  (If they finish the first round quickly and you have the time, let them play several rounds.  Then, award a prize to the winners if you choose.  Pass out the Debrief Questions sheet to each group, and allow them 10-15 minutes to talk about the questions.  Then ask the large group for any general insights from the activity.”

Debrief Questions

o    How does this game reflect real conflict situations?
o    When people got to choose the conflict response they used, what did they usually choose?  Why?  What can you learn from this?
o    What consequences are there for people who always use the following approaches to conflict?
•    Win-Lose
•    Lose-Win
•    Lose-Lose
•    Compromise
o    How do people generally feel about others who use these conflict responses on a regular basis?
o    Why don’t more people approach conflict from a Win-Win perspective?
o    What are the benefits of using a Win-Win approach?
o    What could you do to increase the frequency with which you use Win-win?

Personal power basically is the ability to choose. The more choices we have available to us, minute by minute, the more power we have to take charge of our own lives. So the question is how to get more choices in our lives? In our culture, we more often give away our power (freedom of choice) by allowing other people to decide what we want. In our culture we all have that little gut feeling that something is wrong with us. That we want something, we don’t quite know what it is.

The television tells us every moment of the day that we will be happy when we know we are better than someone else. More beautiful, richer, a better Christian, stronger, younger, smarter, more kind and compassionate, more loving, more giving, more powerful, wiser. Pick one, we want it. Big power says: “You aren’t good enough, you aren’t good enough, you aren’t good enough.” And we believe it. Each of us believes there is something wrong with us that we must fix. And then we let big power tell us what we should want, via television, 24-7, and if we only buy this or do that we will be not only good enough but better than George. And pretty soon we also believe that everyone else is trying to be better than we are — even when they aren’t. And nobody can talk to anybody.

It’s impossible, of course. What we are trying to do. Because just after we prove that we are better than George, we will turn around and there is Frank. “Buy more, eat more, kill more, love more, care more.” Whatever we do we can not be better than everyone. And the more we try to fulfill this cultural imperative, the more strings and buttons we grow that other people can pull or push. The more time, money and energy we spend trying to be better than other people, rather than, for example, trying to be as wise or compassionate as it is possible for us to be — or just simply taking a good look at our strings and buttons and having a good laugh at our silly selves for believing the hype — the less personal power we will have available to actually become wise or compassionate or loving. Because if we can’t fill that void by wanting to be better than other people, and we obviously can not, maybe we could wash it away, along with our strings and buttons, by not wanting impossible things.

And how many scientists, I wonder, are right now trying figure out why we have so much addiction in our culture? The strongest message in our culture is that WE CAN have, do, be, anything we want. We believe it. So we keep trying. Any way we can.

☺

In the Wall Street Journal, Naivete Invites Aggression, Mr. Schaaefer opens his piece with a statement that is inflamatory and unsupported, claiming that President Obama’s call for arms control is a response to North Korea. In my memory, there were calls for arms control before there was a North Korea. This is a typical bait and switch statement. The two problems need not have anything to do with each other. First, everyone knows we have more than enough arms to destroy the world. That raises two questions: Why do we need more than it takes to destroy the world? and Do we really want to destroy the world? Evidently Mr. Obama does not.

However, besides the word games of politicians, there is another fallacy here that I think runs far deeper in our culture, and that is the idea that every problem has two and only two alternative solutions. Specifically with regard to aggression, I have personal experience with the fact that alternatives abound that aggressors can’t even imagine, which is why the aggressive posture usually fails to result in a desirable solution, and we have plenty of recent evidence of that reality.

It is a great weakness of American culture that we can only see two sides of anything. Win-lose, good-bad, black-white. I believe this weakness will probably lead to our downfall. Unless of course we begin to think about what we are saying and doing. Because we have no power of choice over options we don’t even consider, and there are many other people out there who can imagine a plethora of options that we don’t even bother to consider. Whenever they think of an option that we did not think of — we have given away our power. People who can only see two possibilities in every situation are incredibly easy to take advantage of — even powerful, abusive people.

Every time we fail to stop and consider all of our many options, before we choose which one is best, we potentially hand over the reins to someone who can think more logically or is more devious than we are.

and sometimes when you win you lose.

Prima parte este o replica din What dreams may come, un film din 1998 cu Robin Williams – o fantezie frumoasa despre viata de dupa moarte in care fiecare suflet isi creeaza propriul Rai sau… propriul Iad. A doua este reversul care mi se pare la fel de adevarat.

Daca a vedea o victorie in infrangere este o viziune optimista, a-ti da seama ca nu esti un invingator desi in jurul tau sunt doar invinsi este un semn de realism si nu de pesimism. Se spune ca fiecare sut in fund este un pas inainte. Daca din cand in cand nu ai si probleme, nu vei distinge niciodata cand iti este bine. Inveti ceva atunci cand pierzi, castigi acea perspectiva pe care altfel nu ai fi avut-o. In film, eroul are de-a face cu cea mai mare pierdere cunoscuta de om: moartea. Insa descopera ca mai este ceva dincolo de aceasta asa-zisa ultima infrangere si ca are si acolo posibilitatea de a-si alege destinul. Implicit de a invinge.

Dar cate victorii n-au fost de fapt infrageri! Este de ajuns sa privesti istoria sau sa privesti oamenii. Dorinta de a invinge, de a castiga implica de cele mai multe ori ca altii sa piarda. Conceptul win-lose de exemplu ofera iluzia victoriei asupra celuilalt. Din perspectiva relatiei este insa o infragere. Atunci cand relationam macinati de cum sa castigam o argumentatie, cum sa pacalim partenerul de afaceri sau de viata, cum sa obtinem ceea ce vrem inainte ca altii sa ne-o ia inainte, castigam statutul dorit, insa pierdem relatia. 

Nu cred ca exista invingatori si invinsi absoluti. Exista experiente si evenimente interpretabile din punct de vedere conjunctural. Exista putina infrangere in fecare victorie precum exista un castig in fiecare pierdere. Imbatati de laurii victoriei sau coplesiti de povara infrangerii scapam din vedere acest lucru. 

For the past several decades the Prisoners’ Dilemma has been a dominant frame in Game Theory. It’s quadrant model has crossed the boundaries of many disciplines especially political science, economics, business, biology, computer science and philosophy. There are also the games Stag Hunt, Chicken and Hawk-Dove which are 2×2 games. My argument in this post will be that the Prisoners’ Dilemma is not adequately representative of reality.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher while working on game theory at RAND in 1950 which Rand pursued because of possible applications to global nuclear strategy.

Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence payoffs and gave it the “Prisoners’ Dilemma” name (Poundstone, 1992).

The game has two prisoners who cannot communicate and each has only two moves:

1. to conceal their guilt or
2. reveal their guilt

They are aware of the potential outcomes of their actions as follows:

The canonical payoff matrix for the game is represented as follows:

In “win-lose” terminology represents the game in the following manner:

The flaw I see in the Prisoners’ Dilemma is that it only provides the following payoffs:

1. Win-Win (Collaboration)
2. Win Much-Lose Much (Exploitation)
3. Lose Much-Win Much (Exploitation)
4. Lose-Lose (Altercation)

It does not provide for Win-Lose or Lose-Win (Distribution). The absence of distribution may be suitable for Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) games, but not for most other human transactions. Consequently the Prisoners’ Dilemma can be presented as follows:

Now, I am going to take a different tack with the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

I am going to view it from the perspective of Stephen B. Karpman’s Drama Triangle, a concept derived from Eric Berne’s Transactional Analysis. However, I am going to adhere to game theory’s premise that the players are rational.

Stephen categorized interpersonal transactions into three roles:

1. Persecutor
2. Rescuer
3. Victim

In the Prisoners’ Dilemma there are only the Rescuer and the Persecutor:

In what I will call the Transaction Triangle game there are three roles and thus three moves:

In “win-lose” terminology the Transaction Triangle is as follows:

And the canonical payoff matrix is as follows:

As you can see, distribution is incorporated into the model to provide for most human transactions while still preserving the key components of the Prisoners’ Dilemma. I also concluded that the lose-lose payoff of the Ultimatum Game was suitable to provide for no transaction taking place. It is time to abandon the 2×2 mindset of mutual assured destruction and adopt a more human and realistic 3×3 game frame.

Further Reading:

• Prisoner’s Dilemma, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Fairy Tales and Script Drama Analysis
• Stephen B. Karpman website
• Eric Berne website

Johnny wanted to have sex with a girl in his office, but she belonged to someone else…

One day, Johnny got so frustrated that he went up to her and said: “I’ll give you a £100 if you let me screw you. But the girl said NO.

Johnny said: “I’ll be fast. I’ll throw the money on the floor, you bend down, and I’ll be finished by the time you pick it up. ”

She thought for a moment and said that she would have to consult her boyfriend… So she called her boyfriend and told him the story.

Her boyfriend says: “Ask him for £ 200, pick up the money very fast, he won’t even be able to get his pants down.” So she agrees and accepts the proposal.

Half an hour goes by and the boyfriend is waiting for his girlfriend to call. Finally, after 45 minutes, the boyfriend calls and asks what happened.

She responded: “The bastard used coins!”

Lesson: Always consider a business proposal in its entirety before agreeing to it and getting screwed!

Am primit-o azi pe mail si mi s-a parut ilustrativa pentru relatiile de tip win-lose care se formeaza uneori intre parteneri de afaceri.

For at gøre en lang historie kort, så fik jeg en sms fra Piffy Diddy forleden! – først troede jeg at den var fra Brian M – fordi han også kun skriver sms’er på hood-amerikansk, og da jeg gennem længere tid har været i kontakt med Brian M om at sætte ind/redde/innovere Boogie/Boogielisten/BoogieP3/Boogiebloggen og naturligvis Boogienet, der alle har kørt på pumperne på det seneste. Men det var ikke Brian, men min gode ven og branchemand Piffy, der spurgte: ”Hello Bjarke can you pleaZe show Up to mY party it Will be a Jiffy Blast – remember your sweet lovIN sweet Jazz – and you know i cANT partEI as hard without you! LoAds of Golden dot CUM your way! Truly yours and Ole Nezer 4Ever – Pifboy”

Men altså al denne snak/sms om Piffy, Boogie, Brian M og DR gav mig naturligvis idéen til lige at kommentere lidt på den nuværende medievirkelighed. Jeg har jo tidligere kommenteret på DR i forbindelse med den nye medievirkelighed! Nu er der endog kommet en endnu nyere medievirkelighed. Bjarke siger: ”Tag det roligt Plummer – thi her er skråstreg kommer løsningen!”. I det følgende vil en klokkeren, skarp og groft skitseret handlingsplan for DR i blive fremlagt! Efter gennemlæsning er skibet klart og sejlet sat – no worries – tværtimod case-solved, 1-0 til Bjarke – endnu en omgang WIN-LOSE.

Kenneth ”Apple” P har naturligvis ikke tacklet situationen optimalt, hvilket jeg fra tid til anden har sms’et ham, men også kærligt drilleri i stilen: “Hvordan syns U selv d går?” -sådan er humoren i branchen under den dansende forårssol, fois gras, caviar og masser af champagne! Men det er jo forståeligt nok med Kenneth “Apple”’s faglige baggrund indenfor barbiedukker, hvordan skulle han vide, hvad der sker på TV? Men det er OK for Bjarke er her – har roen og overblikket til at sige de ting, alle ja-sigerne på direktionsgangen ikke tør sige. Det er nemlig det, jeg er bedst til. Jeg kan vende alle nederlag til sejre blot med ord.

Branding handler i dag om at gøre alting på den halve tid – og flashe at man gør det. I lang tid har DR’s samling af røde sovet i timen, og imens skulle og burde DR have satset på deres historiske kernekompetencer: Underholdning i bredden og den rimeligt lave fællesnævner.

F.eks.: DR’s kerneydelse har til alle tider været den brede primetimeunderholdning. Nu siger Bjarke: “DR – kend din læst!”. Den kritiske nyhedsreportage, baggrund eller debat – har aldrig været DR’s force – underholdning derimod – Det eR DR!!! – DR IKKE SOM DE ANDRE – SÅDAN! DR skal vedkende sig sin de facto-strategi: L-a-v-e-s-t-e f-æ-l-l-e-s-n-æ-v-n-e-r.

En væsentlig pointe både med branding, Boogie og den resterende del af DR’s sendeflade er mangel på kendte mennesker. Der forekommer programmer på DR, som slet ikke har kendte med i studiet eller programmet – det er et klart demokratisk problem, særligt i relation til den såkaldte public respect-kontrakt/forpligtelse i erindring.

Bjarke hjælper gerne med at finde frem til de kendte, følgende var med til PifBoys fest og er pr. definition top nudge. I selskab med Piffy og som en del af DR’s kommende sendeflade kan nævnes:

• Thomas Villum-Jensen
• Katja K
• Rudi Köhnke
• Morten Wammen
• Remee
• Casper Christensen
• Uffe Holm
• Jarl Friis-Mikkelsen (99 % læderansigt)
• Sofie Lassen-Kahlke (Edith Piaf 2)
• Camilla Ottesen
• Robert Hansen
• Oliver Bjerrehuus
• Henrik Dahl
• Adam Duvå Hall
• Søren Fauli
• René Dif
• Louise Frevert
• Freya
• … og en endeløs række deltagere fra diverse reality-programmer og Parken Sport og Entertainment.

Robert Hansen og Oliver Bjerrehuus havde en mægtig aften til P. Diddys efterfest. Hold kæft de er nogle dejlige drenge. (c) Bt.dk

BFP-strategien
Set i et brancheperspektiv er det ikke nok bare at fyre medarbejdere og satse på kernekompetencer – det også vigtigt at følge en strategi. Der er flere og flere, der i dansk erhvervsliv tror de kan rende mål-løst rundt og stadig score kassen – det sker bare ikke – i hverfald ikke uden en strategi! Bjarke har tænkt – og nu taler han også:

Bjarke foreslår: Brug Flere Penge–strategien (BFP). Et gammelt råd, som jeg har givet mange, er: Man skal bruge penge for at tjene penge. Sådan hænger systemet med offentlige bevillinger sammen. Bevillingen forhøjes ikke, medmindre man har flere udgifter end sidste år. Det er en, på papiret, simpel strategi – men i praksis uhyre svær – derfor skal denne strategi kombineres med den resterende del af handlingsplanen, der følger herefter, nemlig: 1. Hvad skal pengene bruges til? 2. Instant advise og 3. Instant-instant advice.

Hvad skal pengene bruges til?
Der skal bruges flere penge på underholdning og ikke mindst bygninger. Der skal bruges flere penge på at copy-cool’e fra Tv2. I øvrigt er der masser af bygninger, DR ikke ejer endnu – det må der gøres noget ved. Visionen må være at eje hele Ørestaden inden udgangen af 2007.

Instant advise

• Flere genudsendelser. Bjarke siger: Genudsend for Satan: Før søndagen og søndagsgudstjenesterne – der er ingen grund til at opfinde den dybe tallerken HVER søndag.
• Genansæt: Det må konstateres, at alt er gået galt, efter DR solgte Line Baun til en rig onkel fra de varme lande.
• Færre værter skal dække flere programmer. Hvorfor har Vejr-båden kun ti minutters arbejde om dagen? Det skal være ligesom på sygehusene, maskinellet skal bruges hele tiden, OGSÅ når det ikke er på live! Og så skal der benchmarkes! Den båd skal kraftedeme pendulere mellem Bornholm og Køge.
• Direktionslokalerne omlokaliseres til Vejr-Båden. Man kunne også se en besparelse på kaj-afgifterne. Kap fortøjningerne og føl hele den gratis verden på havet som DR’s for- og baghave.

For meget… – for lidt…
Handleplanen på DR ifølge Bjarke 2.0 på SPEED! (hold nu fast Kenneth Apple P.)

1. For mange sømandsviser, for lidt hitliste på P3
2. For meget censur, for lidt ytringsfrihed
3. For meget Ungdomshus, for lidt høj hat, monokel og stok
4. For meget antiJAZZ, for lidt Ruth
5. For meget adel, for lidt pøbel
6. For meget snak, for lidt handling
7. For meget sort kaffe, for lidt fræk sex
8. For mange figner, for få dadler
9. For mange pærer, for få bananer
10. For mange gynger, for få karruseller
11. For meget pænt jakkesæt, for lidt legoklodser
12. For mange playmobilmænd, for få duplo
13. For meget Limahl
14. For meget DR, for lidt TV2
15. For meget løs sex, for lidt seriøse forhold
16. For meget fokus, for lidt nærvær
17. For mange både, for få helikoptere
18. For meget den korte bane, for lidt den lange bane
19. For mange både, for få ubåde
20. For meget pigefodbold og straight sex, for lidt straight fodbold og pigesex
21. For mange ubåde, for få tømmerflåder
22. For meget for få listen, men også strategisk rådgivning i en WEB. 2.0-båret verden
23. For mange livliner, for få bungyjump uden elastik, styrthjelm og sikkerhedssko
24. For meget seriøs journalistisk, for få blogs uden indhold

Jeg kan kun starte med at citere Paula Larrain: “HVEM VAR DET DER VANDT IDAG?” Paula har nemlig som den eneste en blog med VÆSENTLIGHED. Hun har som ingen andre forstået det journalistiske væsentlighedskriterium.

So long, suckers.

Bjarke Guldand

Jeg vil fortælle en ægte historie fra det virkelige liv. Om hjemmedrengen Roy, blandt branchefolk blot kaldet “Power”. Power, som jeg stadig når tiden – desværre atter sjældnere – er til det hænger ud med over et spil bordfodbold i golfklubben i Smørum. Han sagde til mig forleden med hovedet hvilende i hænderne: “GuldBjarke, hvis jeg skriver noget pænt om dig og din blog, gør du så det samme med mig og min blog? Det er WIN-WIN!”. Så tømte han sin brikjuice. Ro på, Power! -sagde jeg. Primært fordi jeg ikke har brug for andres anerkendelse. Det er så oppustet. Der er så meget indavl i den danske coaching/kommunikations/branche, som jeg gør alt for at bekæmpe. Folk fatter ikke vigtigheden af at skelne mellem oprigtig networking og faglig blodskam. Sekundært fordi der ikke findes WIN-WIN, kun WIN-LOSE.

Da jeg kom hjem, fandt jeg ud af, at hvis der er en top dog skråstreg branchemand i den danske kommunikationsbranche/PR-business, så er det Power. Han er kommunikationens Godfather. Power fortjener i kraft af sin legendariske hot shot-status i dk, at jeg hylder ham ærligt uden bagtanker. Den mand har gjort så meget for alle danske coaches/wannabees. Nu vil jeg give lidt igen – også på vegne af alle dem med dårlig hukommelse.

Power var en karl tilbage i de brølende 90′ere. Han var så vild, at han engang viklede silkeskåret parmaskinke om sine smøger for at vise sig over for damerne. Power var true. Han var i branchen kendt for sine 100 åbenstående skjorter. Jeg husker engang, hvor han til Copenhagen Coaching Society’s juleevent tændte en tændstik mod hårene på sit bryst. Det år var der ild i luciabruden (Mette Lisby?)! Det var dengang, hvor Power levede et driverliv på støtten med sprut, damer og hjemmegjort lokumspoesi som tilværelsens mål og middel. Han var ikke tilbageholdende med at spille dem alle et stykke på det prætentiøse orgel – så forstod folk, at de stod overfor en branchemand med principperne i orden – men hans gang gennem tilværelsen var slingrende, og hans position i samfundet bekymrende.

Power var Poul Nyrup Rasmussens Danmarks paria. Undtagen når han som et fingerknips og med hovedet under armen udspyede genistreger om branding etc. Pure genius! Han har reddet røven på adskillige alphahanner i det danske erhvervslivs gorillaflok.

Nu om dage smykker han sig med akademiske grader langt over kandidatniveau og en central plads ved en prestigiøs lærestol – universitetet er hans endelige hjemmebane og rette hylde. Tempoet er mere til ham. Power har fundet sit Nirvana i et skånejob i den akademiske verden. Faldet til ro. Ro på, Power!

Han var en legendarisk skikkelse i den danske kommunikationsbranche/natteliv. Han tyllede som regel Coronaen i én slurk og pressede lime-skiven fra øllen ned ad nakken på en fellow branchemand i baren. Han blev persona non grata i Parkens VIP på grund af sin velkendte forkærlighed for hornmusik. Det var et liv på kanten, hvor faren for at brænde op var mere udtalt end i Tom Kristensens Hærværk. Power som Den Evige Kjær. Den Evige Roy Power. Bortset fra at Power bare var hårdere, hurtigere, dyrere og friskere. Men der var brug for, at en nær ven stillede sig op og sagde ro på, Power! Det blev mig.

Vendepunktet kom for nogle år siden til en reception hos Helge Sander, hvor Power pludselig gik live: “HVAD GLOR I PÅ? HAR I ALDRIG SET EN NØGEN MAND DANSE FØR? SMÅBORGERE!!” Jeg stod i et hjørne sammen med Bertel Haarder, nogle nærsynede højskolefolk – flankeret af de sædvanlige upfront-knægte – og diskuterede boosting af folkeskolen og yadder yadder yadder. Ro på, Power! -råbte jeg. Men det var for sent. Security-folkene havde allerede nået at overbevise Power om, at han havde en fremtid inden for videnskab, teknologi og innovation. Den dag er en milepæl i Powers bohemetilværelse. Han havde brug for ro og balance. Og for at få lettet arbejdspresset. I den slags situationer siger jeg ofte: Den offentlige sektor er svaret.

Og det var det også for Power. Networking er det vigtigste for branchemænd, men da vi nogle måneder senere skulle til releaseparty på Jokerens bog, “Storby Stodder”, var der ikke spor af Power. Jokeren skar tænder af skuffelse – men blandt branchefolk vandt Power kun respekt for sit valg: Ham selv først, derefter branding/coaching/kommunikation. Power havde truffet sit valg.

Hermed den vildeste respekt for min mand Power. SÅDAN skal det gøres! Ingen over – ingen ved siden af. Moralen er, at vi alle er sårbare og kan brænde op/ud. Pas nu på jer selv, for helvede! -siger jeg.

Bjarke

Jæssør!!

Der er mange ulemper ved at leve et liv som jeg.  At være branche mand som fri fugl/entrepreneur har sine omkostninger. F.eks. at jeg rykker nu! JAA! Jeg har fået den vildeste gig i Sønderjylland! Et rimelig upfront firma i Adserballe har hyret mig til at køre den til den bitre ende. Fra imorgen tidlig og tja… en uge frem vil jeg være på “24 teamer”.

Derfor rykker Cindy allerede ind som gæste redaktør så hurtigt som muligt. Lidt før planen, men hun har helt sikkert noget spicy tomat-salat på hylderne, så alle munde kan mættes.

So long! Stay tuned! I’ll be back!

Yo! Bjarke

- en begrebs afklaring

Jeg er fed up af Danmarks Riges floskelkonger og klichédronninger. Så er det sagt. Sådan. Fuldstændig. Folk som at der siger det samme og det samme og det samme og det samme igen og igen og igen og igen og… ZZZZzzzzzz… Som nu menings-maskinen Henrik Dahl.

Henrik Dahl

“Stress” er det aller mest almindelige buzz inden for virksomheds coaching, og jeg er om nogen kronvidne som branche mand, HR dude, virksomheds coach, PR advisor og rådgiver.

Der er mange top dogs fra erhvervs livet som at der igennem tiden er kommet til mig og har sagt fuldstændig ærligt: “Bjarke – hvordan tackler jeg stressen på min arbejdsplads hvor at jeg er i top ledelsen? Du har styr på tingene – ALTID, hvordan bliver jeg ligesom dig? Hvordan vender vi det her morads til en WIN WIN situation?”.

WIN WIN er en tom kliché. Men sagen er at Danmarks erhvervs liv misforstår stress begrebet. Se nu stressforsker Palle Ørbæk fra Det Nationale Forsknings center for Arbejds miljø som der for to uger siden påstod at stress og travlhed ofte forveksles. Travlhed! Simpel TRAVLHED!! Det ER sgu for ufunky i en extremt ufunky loser way.

Sandhed 1: Jeg har ALTID ment at stress er en form for sindssvaghed som der ikke kan rafles om. Den rammer meget få – men når den gør er der ikke noget at gøre. Ud over at leve på minderne og før tids pension. Palle Ø’s argumenter er således gammel urin på nye flasker.

Sandhed 2: Når folk siger at de er stressede handler det stort set altid om “travlhed”. At være travl hedder busy på engelsk. Travlhed = business.

Det handler bare om at få sin travlhed gjort funky. Så har man funky business + no stress.

For helvede – floskelkonger og klichédronninger derude! Jeg lever af funky business………

Derfor må konklusionen være at der findes ikke stress – kun funky business – og alle der bliver ved med at snakke om stress – stop piveriet.

GuldKalven