Mindfulness

Mindfulness techniques are in vogue, both privately and in the corporate context. And yet exhaustion at work is on the rise and burnout rates are increasing. What if the midday meditation is only there to make the afternoon meetings more productive? And, spinning this further, what constitutes genuine regenerative workspaces in the organization of the future?

Meditation as a tool

At the end of my psychology studies, a meditation center was opened in my backyard in Munich-Schwabing. I had been intending to meditate for some time at this point. So I saw the opening a good 15 years ago as something of a sign.

Meditation and mindfulness quickly became an integral part of my daily routine. Initially, I wanted to work towards a spiritual goal in my top-heavy everyday life as a student. But above all, to be honest, I wanted to gain clarity of mind. In other words, I wanted to keep an overview when all my thoughts came at once again; when it became unclear what was important, what I should actually start with: text messages to be answered, things to do, deadlines and bills to be paid. All these “to dos” could sometimes take the form of a tidal wave that swept me away.

Meditation soon became a “tool” that I used to start the day in an organized way and to tame my flood of thoughts. In the beginning, it was accompanied by mantras in foreign languages, produced by my vibrating head voice. At the meditation center, I practiced weekly in a group setting, which then accompanied me throughout the week in the quiet.

Meditation for self-optimization

I strictly adhered to the routine of daily repetition. Meditation came into my life like brushing my teeth, “disciplined” so to speak: you do it every day, for a specific purpose. For example, to survive the tidal wave and not be swept away by it.

Then came the doctorate in Zurich at the ETH. When I moved to Switzerland in 2010, I took furniture and the routine of meditating with me. With the demands of funding acquisition, research, text production, publication, editorship, thesis supervision and lectures, there was enough potential for a flood of thoughts.

Meditation gradually became my tool for self-optimization. Sometimes brilliant ideas came to me while sitting in the lotus position, which I did more badly than well. Then I would limp and stumble from my pillow to my desk with my foot asleep to hastily jot down the ideas. So now it was more and more about using meditation for productivity.

In “4000 Weeks”, Oliver Burkeman vividly describes how quickly these self-optimization strategies and time management take on a life of their own and expand into a sprawling bottomless pit. And that's what happened to me too: what began with work issues later shifted into my private life.

Optimization became an end in itself. In other words, I shielded myself from social situations, for example, so as not to miss out on moments that would generate ideas; I put myself and others under time pressure where none was necessary. This end in itself fell on fertile ground. My driver “be perfect” was the earth. This earth gratefully accepted the seeds of self-optimization. And something grew up that took me far away from my inner core.

Mindfulness as an accomplice to burnout

A key turning point in my understanding of mindfulness was the difference between self-worth and self-compassion. The focus on self-worth is often outward - achieving goals, receiving validation from others. Self-compassion, on the other hand, is internal. It means accepting yourself as you are right now: without the constant pressure of having to prove yourself. It's a more sustainable form of self-care that doesn't rely on external success. I realized after a while that meditation and mindfulness could help me to look at myself with self-compassion instead of constantly measuring myself against the standards of self-optimization.

And at the same time, I realized that meditation can become an accomplice to burnout when stress increases in your personal and work life. I heard an apt metaphor in a podcast: meditation can be like a prison if it only serves to cover up exhaustion instead of really changing something fundamental.

I, too, often used meditation to feel better in the short term without addressing the underlying causes of my overload. This is understandable in stressful phases of life: the human psyche then switches into a kind of autopilot. Mindfulness can then be functional for the moment and the context. In other words, it helped me to continue working productively in the system. But I didn't change anything about the system itself, for example the way I worked and relaxed, talked to myself and others, or the boundaries I set.

The key for me was to question my inner attitude towards meditation. Why do I meditate? To function, to cope with everyday life? Or do I meditate because it meets a need within me? It is important to consider: can I satisfy my need or is it insatiable? If the latter is the case, it can be assumed in terms of need regulation that meditation is merely a substitute need. In other words, that I use meditation to cover up or avoid something else: for example, my fear of inefficiency or loss of control.

Mindfulness and exhaustion in organizations

The question now arises as to how mindfulness can work in organizations. Self-esteem-enhancing, imposed, goal-oriented mindfulness will hardly be helpful in the long term. It will only further accelerate self-optimization. As already mentioned, the attitude of employees and also the “framing” in companies is crucial: when it comes to the instrumentalization of meditation to increase creativity and performance, employees quickly sense this. If meditation is used to boost self-esteem, efficiency and self-realization, it becomes problematic.

In “The weariness of the Self”, Alain Ehrenberg describes how modern society is increasingly characterized by the pressure of self-fulfilment. The constant demand for individual performance leads to chronic exhaustion because people are forced to constantly optimize themselves. This is also transferred to organizations, where the boundary between professional and personal performance can become blurred.

In other words, if the inner dialog leads to the conviction that “I am only a valuable person if I am constantly performing at my best”, then something is wrong. If the corporate culture of this performance requirement on the outside corresponds to drivers such as “be perfect” or “please others” on the inside, there is a risk of exhaustion.

Individual self-responsibility in organizations

In addition to the responsibility of organizations, employees are also responsible for reflecting on their attitude. To this end, it is important to make them aware of their personal responsibility. This means that an individual takes responsibility for their own decisions, emotions and actions instead of looking externally for the causes of difficulties and blockages.

If a person is not responsible for themselves, they may try to influence other people or external circumstances in order to protect themselves from unpleasant feelings: For example, as a manager, they may only hire employees who cannot be dangerous to them, for example because they do not express their own opinions.

However, in order to create a team that deals constructively with contradictions and controversies, it is important to question your own inner attitude, behavior or perspectives. The attitude that one's own well-being or goals must be actively managed by manipulating external circumstances runs counter to this. Unintentional meditation focused on mindfulness can help to change your own attitude. This is because it starts at the point where something is perceived as unpleasant. In other words, at the root.

Mindfulness and conflict management for regenerative workspaces

Organizations are already facing a high level of complexity and contradictions. The seemingly irreconcilable must be reconciled. On the one hand, they are competitive, efficiency-driven spaces; economic viability is and remains a fundamental part of their identity. On the other hand, however, employees and customers demand more “purpose”: in other words, overarching meaning and purpose, i.e. aspects that go far beyond turnover and profit. Conflicts are inevitable.

In “The Art of Conflict”, Klaus Eidenschink clearly shows that conflicts are unavoidable and can be used as a resource. This is because conflicts often reflect the underlying systemic problems of an organization. They show where, for example, communication channels or values are not in harmony. Morton Deutsch also highlighted the potential of conflicts with his theory of “constructive controversy”. According to this theory, they promote critical thinking and creativity and can facilitate innovation and change.

Organizations should therefore create spaces in which conflicts are not only permitted, but actively and productively used. Managers play a decisive role here. They should ensure that conflicts are dealt with openly and respectfully and thus contribute to a constructive conflict culture.

Organizations can also establish structures that offer space for relaxation, reflection and mutual feedback - away from the pressure to perform and constant self-improvement. This could be achieved through flexible recovery times or the active promotion of non-work-related interests. In addition to the sports group, the mindfulness group is also worth promoting. It is important not to link any goals to mindfulness.

The link to Ehrenberg's theses makes it clear that employees need more than just short-term measures to increase their productivity. They need regenerative spaces that allow them to focus not only on external demands, but also on their own underlying needs. Ultimately, this can create workspaces that not only do no harm, but also offer resources. This is how “mindlessness” can become “mindful” again.

Event note (in German): «Self-care in the midst of uncertainty - cultivating dedicated serenity» am 23. Januar 2025 in Zürich

In a world full of uncertainty and constant change, it can be difficult to find inner peace and stay engaged at the same time.

In this course, you will explore the foundation that effective action requires.

For two and a half hours (from 2.30 to 5.00 pm), we offer a safe space in which you can learn and experience techniques of self-care and mindful serenity.

Click here so sign up.

---This blog post also appeared in German on futureready.ch---

Crisis

„Crisis is a productive state. You just have to take away its taste for disaster.“ (Max Frisch)

I read this quote more than 10 years ago, when I had just arrived in Switzerland. Although I couldn't get it out of my head, it initially triggered a lack of understanding. Over the years of parenthood, changing working relationships and roles, more clarity emerged about the resilience-building effect of crisis. This was closely linked to the realization that I always liked to avoid problematic, challenging situations: for example, situations in which people who think differently "trigger" me.

The productive in crises

In terms of systems theory, crises are moments in which the complexity of a system exceeds its ability to process information. In addition, the equation applies: the greater the complexity, the more contradictions there are and the more they have to be endured. To a certain extent, the logic of "right is wrong and wrong is right" applies. And this is where it becomes exciting and relevant to the question of whether and how crisis can be productive. The less willing and able we are to endure contradictions - both internally and externally - the more difficult it will be for us to use crises productively.

Contradictions outside the "bubble"

In this day and age, when we are lulled into a state of "we all agree" by social media, this is more the rule than the exception. If we then come across people who think differently in the physical reality outside the bubble, their contradictions take us by surprise. But it is precisely these contradictions that we should face up to and seek out social situations outside the bubble. We should also become more aware of our own parts. After all, contradictions only become problematic when I silence parts of myself that can gain something from the contradictions on the outside.

The catastrophic in crises

So how does a crisis become catastrophic? Most likely when an individual or a group carries on as before and relies on the supposedly tried and tested: "Fight fire with fire". This can happen if actionism is followed by even more actionism. Or in other words: if we continue to work in the system driven by avoidance instead of on the system, this is a guarantee for standstill.

--This post also appeared on LinkedIn--

Trust

I’d like to start this blog with a consideration of trust. Why? We can think of trust as the glue to our relationships and interactions. At the same time, through the bubble of social media algorithms, we experience modern phenomena like deep fakes, conspiracies, and manipulation. And this makes the concept of pure, blind trust feel somewhat problematic.

Social trust 

Statements like "Trust must be earned," "Trust is good, control is better," or "Trust takes a long time to build but can be quickly lost" reflect, on the one hand, a certain worldview. But they also reveal what an important, yet fragile social asset trust is. So it’s unsurprising that trust has received so much attention from the social sciences. 

In the sociologist Niklas Luhmann’s system theory, trust is a means to reduce complexity. In an increasingly complex world, this becomes very important: trust enables people to remain effective and reactive in uncertain environments. If I can trust others, I don't have to absorb every piece of information myself. And as game theory makes clear, trust also pays off economically.

Organisational trust

In the “constructive controversy” of psychologist Morton Deutsch, trust is, among other things, the basic prerequisite for creative problem-solving in organizations. That is, trust underpins a supportive environment in which people feel comfortable even when taking risks: for example, when presenting new ideas. 

This is also evident through the phenomenon of Psychological Safety that has become prominent at Google. Here, trust becomes the invisible, central factor: equal speaking time, personal openness colloquially "not feeling stupid when asking questions"[PJ1] – without trust in the group, this is difficult to achieve.

Cooperative trust

In participatory climate protection projects with various stakeholder groups, I have learned that without trust, there is no co-creation or cooperation. Especially when stakeholders who pursue different goals behind hardened fronts come together.

Consider, for example, employees of a city’s administrative, representing their department’s policies, who meet activists that are vocally critical of the department and what they allege to be its inactivity. Both parties are likely to presume and project characteristics on to the other. But if this can be openly acknowledge, – if both the rational and emotional elements of the encounter can be addressed, the space and momentum for joint action can be created.

A basis for this can be provided by Theory U. Through “system mapping”, participants come to the realization that we are all parts of a system: one whereby the parts mutually create their own perceptions of their different co-citizens. Without real contact and encounters, the unchallenged image of the “other side” will stubbornly remain.

From my practical experience, in addition to holistic methodological approaches - those that include rather than exclude emotions - simple in-person encounters are important for building trust.

🌳 How trust in cooperation grows: Through reliability, openness, presence, approachability, willingness to make mistakes and experiment, eye-level dialogue, respect, and shared experiences.

🎲 How trust in cooperation is lost: Through control, indecisiveness, finger pointing, lack of transparency in decisions and interactions, and playing for time.

Self-trust

But what about trust in oneself? In my coaching approach and in my own inner-process, I have learned that self-trust helps us deal more confidently with uncertainty. It is related to self-acceptance, self-responsibility, and "awareness".

Self-acceptance is about how much our inner parts affirm or negate each other. That is, how strong is my inner conflict?

Self-responsibility refers to whether a person perceives themselves as affected or active – a plaything of external stimuli, or the shaper of one's own feelings.

With awareness, we can break through the split between thinking and feeling and escape a strong "top-heaviness".

Thus, we can become both conscious of previously unconscious elements of ourselves, and at the same time, learn to differentiate our "selves" and our thoughts. This is most likely to succeed with a trained counterpart to help us perceive and name parts of ourselves.

Trustfulness and Trustworthiness

Authors from different generations have vividly examined whether we are fundamentally capable of trust, such as Jeremy Rifkin ("Empathic Civilization") and more recently Rutger Bregman ("Human Kind"). Advances in brain imaging, neuroscientific methods and epidemiological research have made clear that we are much more capable of trust than we sometimes think.

Buy what if we consider trust from the perspective of physical or, increasingly, digital institutions? How sustainable is trust in the context of the digital manipulation of opinion? Cambridge Analytica’s influence over elections via social media is a prime example of this.

In the era of fake news, AI, ChatGPT and wars at our doorstep, our sense of trust can crumble. "Trust is good, control is better" begins to feel more credible. Today, “facts” must be checked: blindly trusting social media would be negligent. 

Conclusion

It cannot simply be claimed that trust is always good for reducing complexity. Especially in the information age, the trustworthiness of easy digital information stands on shaky ground.

At the same time, it is also important to maintain a balance of control and trust in organizations. Because control, for example, in terms of goal achievement, also has an important function: it helps with orientation. Communication plays a crucial role here, so that control doesn’t lead to mistrust.

And as far as gaining self-trust is concerned, pure reason isn’t always the best advisor. Rather, a well-founded approach, based for example on affective and psychodynamic elements, is crucial for self-trust.

Ultimately, the journey to self-trust is not a purely logical one. We cannot “reason” ourselves confident. But we can, however, take a reasonable approach towards it: one where, with support and accompaniment, we learn to better understand – and trust - ourselves.

--This post also appeared as a shorter version on LinkedIn--