Roland DürreThursday May 2nd, 2013
Ethics and enlightenment, too, are some kind of belief.
This sentence was something that really was hard to digest for me.
I used to believe that I am a non-believer. After all, I question everything and follow the principles of enlightenment and reason. I try to behave “ethically” – meaning that my decisions are based on a balance of values following a value system I myself worked out in a very responsible way. That would be a value system I consciously strived hard to achieve, having taken pains to finally arrive at a formula that is compatible with the world consensus which, for instance, can be found in the Golden Rule or in the UNO Charta. We are talking a value system where tolerance and civil courage are extremely important.
And then it dawned on me that this certainty of mine is also just a belief. It means that I, too, believe in something like the Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in a personalized God, or like other religions believe in their deities or just something higher in general. Or like the atheists happen to believe that there is no God. And they will probably soon come up with the foundation of a religion of their own. To be sure, this sounds logical, but then it seems to be a contradiction in itself.
Incidentally, I never asked myself the question whether or not there is a God. At least not as long as I can remember. Simply because I know I am not good at these kinds of topics. After all, it would mean that I know I know nothing.
Today, I would say: “I think I know nothing”. Well, I do not know anything and neither can I know anything… It all happens just between the ears. And how should I know if something we humans ourselves invented actually exists?
It is also part of my belief that there is no absolute truth. This is also because truth happens between the ears only. Besides the fact that “between the ears” is often a very chaotic place. As I see it, the head is capable of a lot of fantasy, but it is probably too small for reality. So how could the result be some absolute truth – if it was we ourselves who invented or felt everything?
Consequently, I now believe that all we think we know is just belief – some kind of religion. And the only hope that remains for me is that my own belief – in enlightenment and reason (which probably do not exist either, because they, too, are only our experience) – will be more help to me than the belief of others. Especially when they want to force their belief onto me (and others) – and threaten to punish us when and if we do not convert.
My second hope is that my belief in enlightenment, ethics and reason is probably a little more humane and ethical than all the varieties of believes you come across in this world.
However, I kissed the illusion that enlightenment, reason and ethics are absolute truths good-bye.
(Translated by EG)
Well, this is one of those texts you can only write during a lonely train trip – in this case it was from Munich to Stuttgart.
Roland DürreSunday April 28th, 2013
Last week, I was permitted to attend a very special conference. It was the LEADERSHIP FOR INNOVATION, supported by the Peter Pribilla Foundation. It was about VISUALIZING THE INVISIBLE. The event was in Munich, at TUM, or – to be precise -, at IAS on the Campus Garching between April, 25th and April, 26th, 2013.
Even the fact that it was a rather conventional conference did not do any harm. There were quite a few rather “innovative” sessions. Being one of the first-timers, I quickly realized that it was mainly about “meeting” – in the environment of an important network and with the right kinds of people.
Quite logically, the highlight of those two days was the evening event “Network Convention 2013″ on Friday honouring Herrn Prof. Reichswald, who had celebrated his seventieth birthday in April, 1st, 2013. And during this event at the Seehaus in the Englischer Garten, everything was “Boundless Interaction” in the truest sense of the word.
During those two days, I talked with quite a few people about highly exciting things. There were so many new ideas raining in on me that the first thing I had to do was mentally process all the input. Here are a few personal thoughts after my first round of digestion.
It seems to be one of the main problems of our species, both in professional and private life, that we always want to solve challenges with “dominant logic”. However, “real life” is always part of the evolutionary process and said evolutionary process is all but “domineering and logical”. Today, innovation is our attempt at influencing evolution to our advantage.
To me, it seems that this is one of the central tasks of entrepreneurial behaviour: to influence the evolution every enterprise will experience anyway while undergoing the evolutionary “aging process” in such a way that its negative consequences are at least balanced by the positive “innovative change”.
And that is something you cannot do with ratio or logic. You cannot explain the ineffectiveness of dominant logic by dominant logic. All you can do is explain it with experience and wisdom gained from life. Consequently, entrepreneurs will have to live in the “now” and find out what is good and bad for the enterprise, before they hopefully come up with more “right” decisions than wrong ones.
If you deduce decisions with dominant logic from common rules, you will fail. You will end up with many wrong decisions, some of them with profound negative consequences. That is what experience shows us. In order to find more correct decisions in the innovative sense, your criteria for deciding must be based on culture and values.
Examples for absolutely common (and in my understanding detrimental) business rules are: “growth is a must”, “we have to be number one world-wide in our business sector” or “increased shareholder value is the one and only goal of the enterprise”. These are platitudes with no conceptual background, but not rational sources for behavioural incentives.
Here are a few examples for useful cultural rules: “The Golden Rule“ (Die goldene Regel), “human beings are not resources”, “creativity needs fear-free areas”, “successful communication calls for meeting at eye-level”, “generating knowledge creates new knowledge”, “leadership means respect for others”, “consideration and civil courage are the most important virtues”…
The application of these and similar rules will generate more correct decisions in the sense of a sustainable and consequently innovative enterprise development that is mindful of resources. After all, an enterprise, too, is just a social system with a business purpose.
And if management truly wants a sustainable development, the enterprise will have to live by these cultural rules when making decisions. The process may (and must) well be based on ratio and common sense. Because, ethics, too, has a lot to do with ratio – otherwise it can easily cause wrong dogmata. Mind you, even if we stick by that rule, we will not be able to avoid evolution, but maybe we can influence it a little bit to our advantage by applying innovation.
Business leaders often try to learn from mistakes and transfer what they learned into the future. This is also an area where I suspect it will not work if the basis is “dominant logic”. Because dominant logic will always fail when it comes to humans and their social systems.
I am often tempted to prove these theses by using “dominant logic”. Naturally, this cannot be done. After all, what makes evolution so sensational is the fact that it cannot be rationally explained. Instead, it is free of purpose – thus having nothing to do with “dominant logic”. It is not about survival of the fittest“ and perhaps not a “huge, collaborative process”, either. Innovation will always depend on the stream of evolution. We humans alone are bold enough to try and modify evolution through ratio and logic innovatively. But in order to do so, we need “evolutionary knowledge” that can NOT be projected on spread-sheets.
Well – and then there is this other, for me central, characteristic:
We will never create evolutionary knowledge without being “OPEN”! We have to share our knowledge and our experience. With as many other persons as possible. Without any reservations and at eye-level. It is the only way to generate positive innovation as a modification of evolution in order to improve matters both in our enterprises and on this our only world. And this will never be done by one person alone. It will have to be a cooperation of many who will often play totally different roles.
Otherwise, evolution will waste no time in extinguishing us humans from this our planet. To be sure, in the cosmic dimension of things, it would not be much of a loss, but still: wouldn’t it be a pity?
To put it plainly: you cannot see what is invisible, can you? This is especially true for an individual being. But perhaps we can augur it, like in feel it?
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreWednesday April 3rd, 2013
Again, I found a nice article in Eberhard Huber’s projekt (B)LOG “about projects and people”:
It is not easy to have an independent mind (Mitdenken ist nicht einfach).
Eberhard isolates four reasons for “the lack of an independent mind”:
- Solutions are not clear;
- Information is not complete;
- There is no freedom of ideas;
He might well be correct. But what a pity! Because if everyone in a team, project, enterprise were willing and capable of “having an independent mind”, everything would work a lot better.
So what exactly is the meaning of having an independent mind?
For me, having an independent mind means that you are willing and capable of contributing towards a shared future concept with your own competence. If everybody in a team, project, enterprise did it on the right topics, at the right time and at the right place in the appropriate way, we would probably no longer need any “project managers”. And everything would run smoothly, anyway.
One of the cornerstones of success is the culture lived inside a team, project, enterprise. A second cornerstone is the social network of the team, project and enterprise.
In order for the culture to work well, such elements as communication at eye-level and transparency must basically be a matter of course. Values, such as civil courage and constructive disobedience must be accepted and lived. In fact, it is quite simple: the social system team, project, enterprise must create a fear-free and transparent setting for knowledge and creativity as a basis for cooperation.
Networking is easily organized and the rest can also be practiced together. You will soon see huge improvements.
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreTuesday April 2nd, 2013
I no longer like the “huge events” where you talk through microphones and loudspeakers from the front end of the lecture room. My preference is towards the free formats where you can exchange knowledge at eye-level. Consequently, I – along with friends – initiated the PM-Camp. By now, it has turned into a beautiful success story. In June alone, we will organize three local PM Camps in Stuttgart, Vienna and Bad Homburg near Frankfurt. You can expect news from those events pretty soon.
Regardless, I decided to write and send a proposal paper for an old-style event a short time ago. The event I am talking about is the 9th Stuttgart Management Days “Knowledge Will Bring Us Together”. It will be from November, 12th to November, 13th, at the Stuttgart Liederhalle. The event is organized by “wissensmanagement – Das Magazin für Führungskräfte”. I know Neusaß (near Augsburg), where the publishing company is situated, quite well from my youth.
I designed the presentation because I think we absolutely should share knowledge and we need transparency and clarity. That is why knowledge must not be locked up in some kinds of systems. It must be set free to reach social areas of humans in enterprises, institutions and society. This is the only way for us to give our knowledge a chance to be applied and achieve something.
If you want to practice “good” knowledge management, it does not really matter what technology you use. Instead, the important thing is a “good” entrepreneurial culture. With this in mind, I wanted to give a presentation before an audience of “knowledge management experts”.
So I booted my last remaining MS computer, accessed the “form to be filled in by applicants” on the website of the “wissensmanagement”, downloaded a terrible word form and spent a nice Saturday afternoon formulating my ideas for the presentation in word (!).
Firstly, I read the deadlines to be met:
April, 30th, 2013 – deadline for submitting papers
October, 11th, 2013 – deadline for final documentation/slides
November, 12th – 13th, 2013 – congress
And here is the first problem already: How am I supposed to know all the things that will move me between now and November? Even today, I already feel a lot like changing some things in the paper I submitted on March, 23rd. Here are the data I entered on the form to be filled in by prospective speakers:
Name: Dürre First Name: Roland. M.
Academic Title: Dipl. Math. Univ.
Position: Managing Director Enterprise: InterFace AG
Postal Address of Enterprise: Leipziger Str. 16, 82008 Unterhaching (www.interface-ag.de)
Telephone Number: 089 – 61049-0 Fax: 089 – 61049-85 Mobile Phone: 0171 48 50 115
Short CV outlining your professional career – will be published on the internet (max. 500 symbols)
Pioneer of the third computer science and communications technology generation. 1969: studied mathematics and computer science with F.L. Bauer (TUM). Worked at Siemens UB D as a student until 1979 (developed IT basic technologies) and later as a regular employee (operating systems for big “special projects”). After two years at Softlab: founded InterFace Connection GmbH, today InterFace AG with Geldmacher in 1983.
Sideline: blogger and network activist (if-blog.de, duerre.de, pm-camp.org …)
Title of Presentation
”Our Enterprises Need New Knowledge“
How values and culture can help us to accept and utilize change.
4-6 points that outline the focal issues of your presentation
Humans will be successful if they have education and knowledge, along with courage – and if they enjoy their work. The success of an enterprise is based on values and trust. The huge challenge in an enterprise is strategic clarity and communication at eye-level! The knowledge of an enterprise must not be locked away. Instead, it must be set free! ”Social Media“ can help with more than just change.
(max. 500 symbols)
The world changes all the time. Innovation becomes “creative destruction”. Transparency and sharing are demanded. How does leadership in the 3.0 Enterprise meet this challenge? What does a competitive entrepreneurial culture of “today” look like? How can we make sure to make “the right decision” more often, instead of “the wrong decision”? How to know the difference between “good” and bad”?
What role do “Social Media” play?
Extended description of content (250 to 500 words)
Change is a logical conclusion of evolution and to be lived and supported by all in our enterprise. The always necessary process of continued improvement will be worked on together. … … The people working in our enterprise collaborate closely. Change is nourished by ideas from everyone. The basis for our future is empowering of people“. (Citation from our entrepreneurial principles):
Problem or chance?
More knowledge will generate change, change will generate new knowledge. This development seems to gain speed. The requirements our “world” confront us with change quickly. The entrepreneurial knowledge and competence must remain dynamic – it must not become dogmatic.
More and more enterprises will fail because of their “individualistic hierarchies”. On today’s markets, they can only survive with “new ways of thinking”: concepts developed from insights that were gained through the entity of the enterprise. Popular and important catch-phrases are crowd and swarm. There will be a merging and morphing of individual knowledge into shared knowledge.
Why is that so?
Humans live in “social systems”. Social systems can be NGOs, unions, associations, churches or enterprises.
Enterprises explicitly have an economic goal. It is to provide products and services for the market and thus feed their employees. They are subjected to the permanent change of their environment and must react flexibly.
Where something is deficient, we must find and improve on it. Where you have a special strength, you must identify and utilize it. You must remain aware of risks and chances at all times. Events that seem neutral or outside of potential evaluation might quickly become relevant.
It only makes sense to think about solutions after you have identified the important (correct) questions. “Future management” must become part of your daily routine.
How to achieve it?
Sharing experiences and learning of the “world inside and outside the enterprise” is the basis. Information must be collected by all parties concerned and made available to all parties concerned. Everyone may comment, add to, evaluate and weigh… The “enterprise crowd” will evaluate the relevance, develop the strategy and eventually decide upon operative measures.
What do we need?
Especially in distributed worlds, these kinds of processes can only be managed with supporting IT systems. They have to be designed like “games” (”Gamification“). The game must guarantee the gain of both the enterprise and the individual employee. Credits gained during the game must become part of a bonus in real “Euros”. Success will increase your reputation inside the enterprise and will become an asset for your future career.
Naturally, this is something you will only be able to do in an open, transparent and free entrepreneurial culture. The enterprise must realize fear-free areas. “Sharing knowledge” must be perceived by all as something advantageous.
Please include a digital picture (Portrait) (JPEG/GIF, 300 dpi)!
Thank you very much.
So far the form I filled in. I immediately processed it via email and photo to the given address.
I did not have to wait long for the reply. It was an invitation to sponsor the Stuttgart Knowledge Management Days.
Well, I am almost tempted. Because if I act as a sponsor, my application might well be taken more seriously. You can hardly refuse a sponsor’s presentation, can you?.
Now I am no longer surprised that the presentations on these kinds of events often sound so much like adverts and self-display. And why, consequently, so many people prefer barcamps.
Well, I decided not to sponsor the event. I am almost sorry I sent my paper. If the presentation will be accepted, I will still go and speak. And I will give my best. I will try not to speak as a front-end orator, but instead, as far as the surrounding will make it possible at all, I will invite the audience to participate.
And if my paper is not accepted, I will present it elsewhere. And I will then have a good warming-up-story.
During this activity of mine, I also discovered the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Wissensmanagement (GfWM). It cooperates with the publishing company of “knowledge management”. I am not yet familiar with the association and lobbyist structure of knowledge management. However, I am assuming that it is quite similar to other associations in the sphere of project and quality management. It is mainly about power and “that funny stuff”.
So now I have the idea of founding a barcamp for “sharing knowledge” (WI-Camp). It would enable us to meet just as nicely for knowledge management and to exchange ideas on knowledge as we are now doing it at the PM camps on topics around project management. If you are interested, just contact me.
(Translated by EG)
Werner LorbeerThursday March 28th, 2013
It is really surprising what surprises some people!
If you trust your money to a bank, you are the debtee of the bank. There is no way the bank would keep “my money” safe. It is only insured up to 100,000 €, the remainder is subject to the usual insolvency procedure in case of a bankruptcy. Of course, the capital that used to belong to the owners is gone and the same is true for those who bought “bonds” from the bank that were insured, such as bank loans or derivates, etc.
Now this might be boding ill, but it is not really a surprise: if a state is bankrupt, then so are its banks. After all, huge parts of the federal debt were bought up by the banks using the money their customers had given them. Or would it be better if banks refused to finance the state? Basically, private debtees can only get rid of their debts inside the legal order. That makes the private debts safer – which is a fact mirrored at the bond market during the last years.
But then, how else could the enormous savings capital of the citizens be invested if not through the state and administrative units? To be sure, the citizens might invest in naturals, but especially in Germany, this is done less often than in the rest of Europe. For example, we have less property owners than Cyprus. So what really matters – be it savings for old age or for one’s education – is that states are kept in good solvency in order to organize an important characteristic of money: maintaining its value.
If a state spends more money than it gets from its citizens through taxes, fees, customs, etc., then its solvency is reduced. But he has the right to fall back on the fortune its citizens have built up. Because we democrats gave all our rights to the sovereign.
So what options does the state have in order to create a basis for a new currency after said state went bankrupt (= nobody was prepared to give it any more money)?
Here is a list of torture instruments, I am sure it is nowhere near complete:
- Currency cut at exchange ratio;
- Obligatory mortgage on property;
- Obligatory loan for all bank accounts and deposits;
- Exchange control regulations;
- Replace money by coupons;
- Forbid the ownership of gold;
- Property taxation;
- Compulsory expropriation;
- Inheritance taxation;
- All property goes back to the state;
- Increase all taxes and other fees;
- Debt cut through refusal of paying back state loans;
What an impressive list!
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreMonday March 25th, 2013
“Get in Shape!” held on March, 31st at the IF Academy is now over. It was a truly nice presentation by Johannes Schmidt. As soon as the video recording is finished, we will make it available to you.
After “Get In Shape!”, we will present
“Ubuntu & Android Usage in Business”
The test in practice – what can Windows alternatives really achieve? Features, problems and solutions. An overview.
On May, 16th, 2013, Alexander Jachmann of the IF-Tech AG will update us on the current state of affairs. It will, again, be very well worth watching, so write down the time! And the other scheduled presentations can also already be seen on the poster.
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreSunday March 24th, 2013
I like Facebook, Google+, Twitter and many more …
I constantly hear sentences like…
“… all those Facebook and twitter affairs are evil … personally, I absolutely boycott social media … virtual friendships are rubbish, because you have to see each other face-to-face, anyway… and worst of all is, after all, this stupid: I like!”
… from persons who are otherwise basically to be taken quite seriously. I mean people who climb into their cars and drive off at high speed or go back to watching TV – which means they actually use technology that used to be quite modern and relevant.
I prefer to keep quiet on hearing their comments. After all, I know that any and all of my attempts at explaining things (social media) to them is totally useless. There is nothing you can ever do about dogmatic know-all manners, especially if those know-alls do not even know what they are talking about and consequently cannot understand it. This is actually true in general.
In the last ifcamp (barcamp at InterFace) on our BlueFriday (of March, 22nd, 2013), I introduced one “knowledge management” session. It was about how we can set knowledge free and then share it. In order to then evaluate it together and identify what is relevant. With the goal of finding the right and probably better decisions for the future from the “crowd”.
In the course of our discussion, the Facebook phrase “I like” also came up. And we concluded that this is probably a first and extremely simple tool for social feedback. You can use it if you want to show people that you like something. Or that you appreciate them. Or that you simply are sympathetic. …
During the session, we came to the mutual conclusion that there is a need for a refined and neutral “feedback technology” for applications intent on using the crowd and the good social web. For these systems, this would be an absolute necessity. Without this technology, these kinds of projects cannot succeed.
We spontaneously found ways to improve on “I like”. Here are some examples.
- Give a limited number of “I like”-s to each participant;
- Assign a certain amount of them each month;
- The participants get dynamically more “feedback units” as the social relevance increases, perhaps similar to klout;
- Or maybe there could be something like a “Page-Rank” for members of a social system;
- It might also be a good idea to introduce “feedback units” with different weightiness…
In a nutshell: I believe the “feedback technology” is a very important and central component of all kinds of crowd and social web applications. But this is not at all a trivial topic; it is well worth dealing with in great detail. I am sure there is also a considerable number of scientific works with good ideas which one might be well advised to take a closer look at.
Here is an example from another field that surprised me:
I like writing in stenography. So I had this idea that the technology of “writing quickly and ergonomically (instead of tense) by hand” – which has been developed and perfected over hundreds of years – could be used for text processing on tablets or with gesture-controlled systems. And then there was a friend of mine who works among the Academia who found it a wonderful bachelor theses topic, so it was very thoroughly analysed.
So – let us get under way;
Let Us Share Knowledge – and Use It!
(Translated by EG)
This article does not suggest that I find everything Facebook or Twitter does agreeable. If, for instance, I will notice certain tendencies towards tampering with “social metrics” at Facebook, you will have seen the last of me there sooner than you might have imagined. But such a turn of events at FB will not change my opinion that social networks and shared knowledge applications mean social progress. In fact, it would be one more reason to rekindle the old philosophical and ethical discussion: how can we get to a stage where the production of articles and services will be done decently? After all is said and done, this will again end up in a discussion about privatization or the social responsibility of those who own all the production goods.
Roland DürreFriday March 22nd, 2013
… and so does the enterprise 3.0
I am currently preparing a presentation on “knowledge in social systems”. After all, as I see it, enterprises are just one variant of social systems with an economical goal and generally special dependency-structures that have been regulated by legislation in a particularly elaborate way (I am trying to use an unbiased formulation here).
My first thesis in said presentation is that “new knowledge” has to be
- Free of dogmata; and
- Free of truth claim.
Knowledge is changing all the time. “Knowledge gained from life”, in particular, can always only be a snapshot. It changes all the time and always only has limited validity.
Well, it sounds a matter of course, but yet it is too often not lived up to.
My second thesis is that we will only be able to do this
- In an environment of transparency; and
- If we meet each other at eye-level.
Consequently, knowledge – as well as willingness – can never be caught and locked away in data bases. Instead, it has to be free and changed dynamically through permanent learning.
This is a pity, because knowledge is the most precious of all raw materials we have – not to mention the nice characteristic that it is the only raw material that will increase if you share it.
So what we need is not just an “economy of sharing”, but also “communities that share knowledge”. And we also have to dramatically change the way in which we share knowledge.
And this is where I still see no end of contradictions with still current but totally antiquated system rules and transfer practices, as well as with our economy-oriented way of thinking.
Knowledge must at long last be liberated!
Consequently, I will write about “new and free knowledge” more often in the future.
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreFriday February 15th, 2013
On March, 31st, 2013, Johannes Schmidt will be our speaker at the IF Academy. He studies Informatics at TU München, minoring in Medicine. “Additionally“, he also works at the InterFace AG IF lab.
He has also several years of experience as an entrepreneur and started Glassbox Games with a group of friends. The young team programmed all kinds of smaller video games and Apps for various platforms.
In order to try and learn new things, Glassbox Games was founded by the same group. By now, Glassbox Games already won some smaller prizes and developed into a small enterprise. The goals have grown and now include serious entrepreneurial visions. And, of course, the Glassbox Games and InterFace AG are closely connected and on very friendly terms.
In his presentation, Johannes will focus on “movement control”. He will tell us about the historical development of this technology and show in a practical exercise how easily this technically really demanding topic can now be programmed.
Besides, he will introduce an IF lap project that reasonably integrates movement control. The presentation will conclude with a short outlook on what we might expect in this sector in the near future.
As always, the presentation will be held in our seminar zone. I strongly recommend it. Johannes will take us on a trip to a world that is alien to many of us, but it might suddenly become a very relevant part of ”common IT“. You really should have some basic understanding of it.…
We start at 6 p.m. – visitors are welcome from 5.30 p.m. After the presentation, there will again be a happy hour, called “beer and informatics”.
We look forward to welcoming many visitors from all age groups!
If you are interested in the tournament, click here.
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreTuesday February 12th, 2013
I “pilfered” the title from Prof. Dr. Axel Börsch-Supan (Director of the Munich Center for the Economics of Aging MEA) at Max-Planck-Institute for Social Justice and Social Politics. He gave a strong presentation with the same title at the event “How to Guarantee Experience for Future Generations (Erfahrung für die Zukunft sichern)” at TUM for the „Project TUM Emeriti of Excellence“ .
I already wrote about this presentation in my article: “A rolling stone gathers no moss (Wer rastet, der rostet)”. For me, the event brought many new, well-researched items of information. Professor Börsch-Supan proved in a constructive way that the early retirement habits of our contemporary times are wrong. He also told us that this is detrimental for all parties concerned: the retirees, the enterprises acting in this manner and all of us.
A short time ago, I met a friend whom I hold in very high esteem. He is the same age as I am. A few months ago, he entered the “early retirement” phase. And he is a good proof of all I learned in the presentation. Here is how I often see pre-retirement:
It is almost complex (very complicated) and serves many critical themes. If you know this, you also know how expert know-how is extremely important in this sector.
A friend of mine is a top expert when it comes to a very relevant database technology. He is particularly adept with extreme volumes and demand situations. In all Europe, there are probably only a few experts who can hold a torch to him.
My friend is the same age as I am. His employer is a first-class concern. A few years ago, this concern offered a lavish early retirement package to its older employees, practically following the principle “handing out to all and sundry”. My friend, too, took the bait.
A few years later, the day has arrived. My friend is now retired. Mind you, he is still as much of a first-class expert as he used to be. Financially spoken, he made a good deal.
However, he also realized that his knowledge will be missed by the enterprise. Consequently, he tries to hand it on to his colleagues in a pro-active way. He offers to teach workshops on a voluntary basis, even after office hours. Because, due to all the pressure during office hours, there is simply no time left. This concept, however, does not work well. He is rather disappointed to see that there is not much interest and that hardly anybody wants to come and learn from him.
Then the day of retirement comes. And now you have nothing but losers:
Some very important know-how is lost. If, for example, in the future, a process comes to a standstill because the IT does not work as it should, it might well be because something is not as it used to be. Because the know-how is now lost and consequently there are a few things that will no longer run as smoothly as they did before.
Initially, he found early retirement absolutely thrilling. The new “freedom” was just wonderful. There were still a number of activities left from the time as an active member of the work-force. Good intentions were formulated – and adhered to. A few months later, everything already looks different. Less social contacts, the good intensions, too, are no longer quite as strictly put into practice … And slowly frustration comes. I witness it quite closely.
This friend does actually exist. However, it is not one friend. Everything I understood from the presentation seems to match reality.
When all is said and done, everything the speaker told us and warned us against actually happens in real life:
Use it – or – lose it.
Well, let us wait and see if I can learn something from this for my future.
(Translated by EG)