Schlagwort-Archive: Contribution

Life also does not necessarily punish those, who come too late

The words “I would have …” turn responsible managers into wouldhavers. These people have in hindsight the aptness of knowing everything better. The more frequent the use of the subjunctive of have, the more likely it is to be such an exponent. They are brake pads of progress, who do not produce any positive results and steer the future through the rear-view mirror. On the one hand, they do nothing at the right time, and on the other, they cut off the momentum of the active people at the wrong time. With their lousy timing, they do nothing (wrong).

What constitutes the wouldhavers?

They are primarily retrospective decision-makers.
Wouldhavers know that a decision is a choice between several alternatives. Based on rational criteria or feelings that are hard to define, they make their decisions afterward. For them, it does not matter whether they decide

  • with or without safe foresight,
  • with or without difficulties,
  • with or without playing out consequences,
  • with or without consideration of pros and cons, and
  • decide with or without pressure.

They are always too late. As a result, missed activities and lacking procedures lead to random outcomes and unintended consequences. Their shortcoming is poor timing.

They always have the best solution
Their undisputed skill is a good understanding of solutions and the difference between good and harmful effects. The problem becomes

  • clearly derived from the context,
  • the responsibilities recognized,
  • the procedure described,
  • observed from different perspectives,
  • described with a simple sentence and
  • examined concerning negative aspects.

They then derive objectives (see link) and measures. With their skills, they can create the best solution. However, poor timing prevents them from delivering at the right moment. They are simply too late.

The later, the better
The best moment for a decision is when the further procedure has to be determined or selected and released from several alternatives. The difficulty is that

  • not all influences are known in advance,
  • some thoughtless decisions go in the wrong direction,
  • certain information is intentional or unintentional and inaccurate or false,
  • complications need further resolutions in the implementation,
  • the people involved do not want to or cannot understand the initiative,
  • often the option for immediate termination is not considered.

A belated decision has the advantage of seeing the effects. This allows retrospective decision-makers to avoid the stumbling blocks that have arisen. They simply miss the crucial moment.

They do not actively contribute anything
Their contributions are senseless and remain unused because the implementation has already taken place. However, this does not prevent them from making their late “comments”. They burden the participants with demotivating propositions on past activities and, as late bloomers, also fail to deliver solutions for the current task. They create ineffective wouldhaverades, e.g.

  • I would have adequately prepared.
  • If you would have taken the time.
  • You would have avoided the risk if …,
  • I would not have done it that way.

Unfortunately, these anachronistic all-time-doubters hinder the renewed decision-making process with these inane contributions, just when the team is moving on to the next problem.

Bottom line: The wouldhavers are actually valuable employees. They have a good understanding of the building blocks, coherences, and solutions. Unfortunately, they fail to activate their skills at the right time. A way out provides workshop layouts that perform retrospective planning from the goal’s perspective to be achieved. For this purpose, you guide the participants mentally into the future and look at the project retrospectively, out of the assumed future. It could help the unintended wouldhavers to bring in their knowledge and draw the necessary conclusions. However, this does not reach the politicians, as they avoid decisions on principle to wash their hands in innocents in case of failure. Those who are late have done nothing (wrong) and cannot necessarily be punished for a bad result.

Mind map 2.0 multiplies your efficacy

In the past, we were prepared for our professional life by learning reading and writing, basic arithmetic and geometry, music, art and sport in ex-cathedra teaching. Group work and business exercises or computers and visualizations were rarely used. An example of an approach is the Mind map. All kinds of ideas, structures and sketches can be created: e.g. brainstorming’s, strategies, goal hierarchies, business developments, project plans, minutes, problem solutions, speeches, time management, etc. The efficacy of Mind mapping can be multiplied by using IT-based tools such as Mindmanager, XMind, iMindMap, iThoughts and others.

In addition to the tips and tricks, the internet also provides rules for mind mapping. The following suggestions are primarily intended to enable the use of IT tools.

  • Anything goes
    Actually when you create your mind map with an IT program, all the common rules are
    no longer necessary. The now realizable size exceeds the limits of a sheet of paper by far. This also applies to the number of branches and the number of detail levels as well as to the labels and other media (see below). The development of a mind map can be done on your own or in a team by using a beamer or large video screen, or even in virtual videoconferences with worldwide distributed participants. Depending on the number of participants, the effort for the coordination of the branches of the resulting map increases.
  • Use the media
    Whereas one is conventionally limited to writing, drawing and gluing images in paper-based mind maps, one can use a wide variety of multimedia objects to integrate them in a tool-based way – texts, images, videos, links, office files, etc.
  • Any contribution counts
    If one works on paper, then the rework, i.e. above all the simplification, is somewhat complicated. In an IT-based mind map, the branches can be reassigned as required, including all sub-branches attached to them. This supports the usual brainstorming approach of simply capturing each post without discussion. That way maps can be developed in separate working groups. The final incorporation creates an aligned, joined result.
  • Be aware of your gut feeling
    A practical feature is the subsequent arrangement of the branches. The graphical presentation supports thereby the intuitive editing of the content. You can move branches into others and get inspired by the new formation. Visual thinking does not simply follow conscious logic. Through the graphical structure, the subconscious mind assists in the alignment. In the interest of a skillful result you should always listen to your gut feeling, even if you cannot always understand the reasoning behind.
  • Keep on going
    Software tools live on their juncture to the world. The Mindmanager offers connectivity to Microsoft products, for example: MS-Excel, MS-Word, MS-PowerPoint and even MS-Project. This means that the captured content can continue to be used in the sequence. Thus, the activities of a project, including dates and dependencies, can be planned with the Mindmanager and then transferred to the MS-Project format.

Bottom line: Tool-supported mind mapping, like Mind map 2.0, expands the use of this approach. This allows the multi-medial creation of mind maps of any size. At the same time, open approaches for the development can be used and sub sequentially integrated to a coherent overall picture. With the graphic representation the subconscious areas of thinking are also used. Eventually, all the results can be reused in classic office tools. Thus, Mind map 2.0, i.e. the use of software-supported mind mapping, multiplies the efficacy of the mind mapping.