The uncertainty of running my own business has been amplified by this new global crisis; a wicked problem in which leadership is required, rather than management when faced with a tame problem or when the problem is critical and commanders are needed. The time is now to rely on myself and my self-leadership. To my surprise, I am facing this new crisis with a lot of positivism. I was not aware of how much had I developed my self-leadership. And much of it can be attributed to the last seventeen months in which I participated in the Coaching and Consulting for Change Master’s Program. Reflecting on my learning journey, the topic of this essay, I have synthesised my personality, experiences, values and attitudes into my value system for self-leadership.
In this essay I address a future scenario for recruitment agencies in developed countries and I will lean on elements of the Oxford Scenario Planning Approach, in order to suggest future business scenarios for recruitment agencies and head hunters. In order to assess whether my assumptions and scenarios have validity and are valuable to the industry, I would like to invite recruitment agencies to do so.
In this essay I want to address whether there is an increase in narcissistic behaviour and entitlement of Generation Y (millennial) born between 1980 and 1994, and what the underlying causes for such a possible rise could be, in particular with respect to parenting and institutional factors. Further, I will discuss how domination of narcissistic behaviour and sense of entitlement could unfold in the workplace in a worst-case scenario, and how companies could respond to an increase in narcissistic behaviour and a strong sense of entitlement of Generation Y.
Two important ingredients for successful organisations: a slightly narcissistic CEO and psychological safety within the organisation. But what happens when a very narcissistic CEO turns in to a Big Bad Wolf and starts treating human beings as objects? Try maintaining psychological safety in the team, which sounds like Little Red Cap giving feedback to the Big Bad Wolf, dressed up as her grandmother, and she about the size of his mouth. It is not working out very well. So, to which extent can they coexist? What needs to be in place to make sure that the Wolf keeps his charm, but does not eat Little Red Cap? How can Little Red Cap believe that she can provide a reality check to the Wolf without being eaten? In this essay, I will address the importance of both psychological safety and CEO narcissism and I will discuss possible interventions to prevent the coexistence of these two potential opposites of going over the tipping point from constructive narcissism toward reactive and destructive narcissism.
Is it possible to change the mindset of a large organisation, such as a multinational? The question is, whether it is possible to scale the principles of Action Science to a larger group, such as an organisation, to change its mindset and thereby improving the actions for the intended outcomes. To understand the possibility, I will reflect on the impact of group dynamics and circumstantial influences on the application of Action Science to a larger group. These dynamics and influences – such as trust, motivation, cultural differences, distances between entities, and constant change – impact group behaviour and therefore the success rate of a collective learning intervention to achieve a mindset change, on individual level and various size levels of an organisation. My reflection.
Is Corporate Social Responsibility used by companies as a defence against making radical changes to their business?
Corporate Social Responsibility is more on the agenda than ever. The introduction of the Triple Bottom Line (1994) and the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals have pushed companies to take Corporate Social Responsibility to the next level. But are companies really committed to change their business models and 'live' Corporate Social Responsibility? Is it possible to make radical changes to their business models or are there arguments not to do it? Or is it more of a gimmick? In other words: Is Corporate Social Responsibility used by companies as a defence against making radical changes to their business?