Edifications from abroad

(Translated from Turèll-blogmanifest nummer 19, eller: Opbyggeligheder fra det fremmede)
Recently, I got yet another idea for yet another one of those blogs, for which I get the idea which I then refrain from doing anything about - I still have to shamefully admit that this is the way it often goes. It came from the fact that I came across an excellent English blog post somewhere, and when I came to the end of it, it appeared that it actually was originally a blog post which was written in French on another blog.
It made me think that there are masses of such observations that deserve to have their footprint increased to people who simply do not understand English, or are most familiar with reading in Danish. It will obviously only be a translation as good as I am able to do it - but it will probably in any case have a certain possibility to be at least comparable to what Google Translate can offer.
I will obviously behave nicely, ask the original author's permission and write the credits due as befits, and explain that I only do it because I find the author's work so excellent that it should be shared as widely as possible.
One day I will make such a blog.
When I grow up, I will make such a blog. I can hardly wait.

The Most Important Task

Not many days ago, I used almost one and a half minutes on Daniel Pink and his Pinkcast - now I did it again. This time his talked over a topic he picked up from the writer Leo Babauta - a topic, abbreviated into MIT (no, not that MIT, but rather): the Most Important Task: if you want to get the right things done, start the day by picking out the Most Important Task of the day, and without hesitation get on with it: allowing no outside disturbance such as e-mail, Twitter or other procrastination to get in the way until the MIT is completed.
It is, as Pink also indicates, somewhat of a revelation, because it is so obvious, when you think about it. Just get on with it.
And, well, just hope for the stakeholders of your Second-most Important Task being unable to physically place themselves between you and your MIT...
(Translated from Den mest betydningsfulde arbejdsopgave)

On the topic of decisiveness

Recently, I saw an interesting video, where Daniel Pink in a "Pinkcast" in less than one and half minutes gave some good advice on how to make better decisions on your own.
The recommendation originally came from Chip and Dan Heath's book "Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work", and I found it so interesting that it immediately drew me towards an internet bookstore.
In all simplicity: if you need a good decision, one should simply think: what advice would I give a good friend, if he came to me and asked me for advice in relation to the same dilemma?
It turns out that in this way, if one is able to free oneself from the tangle of emotions that often accompany the big decisions, one is messing with, it is possible to make better decisions.
Much good can be achieved if one can get away with cheating oneself with a laudable purpose.
(Translated from Noget om beslutsomhed)

On the topic of good reasons

We see quite it often in our daily lives - for example in the public or in our jobs - that we are subject to procedural changes that seem downright foolish; but there must be a good reason, because why change the procedures if there isn't?
The big problem is just that in most cases the modifications are allowed to appear stupid without contradiction because no good explanation is given; and one simply begins to assume that there probably are no good explanations. Much of this could be avoided if only a good explanation was given when it was there - because then we would understand that a good reason actually existed. And the same principle we should use in our own communication: if there is a good reason - tell it!
Of course there is a risk to end up in situations like the one known from the movie "A Few Good Men," where the words come from Jack Nicholson's mouth: "You can't handle the truth!" But well - let's take these situations when they arise. I think the biggest problem will be that in the cases that remain unexplained, one will become even more convinced that the good reason does not exist.
(Translated from Noget om gode grunde, originally posted August 22, 2013)

Not enough to make a difference

Recently, I came across a blog post, in which law student Silvana Mouazan talks about how since she started blogging she has been greeted with a question about whether she was Muslim or not.
People who ask such questions may well do so because they are unsure. And if this uncertainty is based on Mouazan's writings, I guess it should be appropriate to conclude that she is probably not so much of a Muslim that anyone should consider it dangerous?
Or to generalize - for it is not only about Muslims and non-Muslims: if one finds it reasonable to divide the world into two groups; we can aptly call the two groups "them" and "us" - and is compelled to ask the question: "are you one of them?" - then even before asking, the conclusion should probably have been that the other party is probably not so much "one of them" that it makes any difference. And then, why ask the question at all?
Or to see it from a completely different angle: at one time it was so popular to say that "if you're not with us, you are against us". Why not turn it over and say, "if you're not against us, you are with us." Maybe even enhance it with a "welcome"?
(Translated from Ikke så meget, at det gør noget, originally published May 16, 2016)

In the right room

One of the points that Sydney Finkelstein carries in "Superbosses" is not really news - I have not been able to find out where it originally came from, but this does do not necessarily make the point uninteresting:

If you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room.

Of course, there are exceptions - school teachers are obvious examples - but otherwise it makes good sense: if you aren't in the company of people you can learn from, then you have not chosen the right companions.

But you can argue that then there will of course at any time in any group of people be a person who should not be there? Fortunately, I do not think it's that bad. For it may well be that when it comes to some fields, a person is the smartest in the room - while being a novice in other fields and thereby easily able to learn a great deal from some of the others.

The point can therefore equally correctly be interpreted in the way that at any time, one should surround oneself with a wide range of different people with different skills and areas of interest - so that at any time, there are fields in which one can learn from the people one is surrounded with, and thus, one will always be in the right room.

(Translated from I det rigtige rum)

On the topic of superbosses

From time to time, I am fortunate enough to get hold of a book, which pages almost turn by themselves because the author handles an interesting topic and is able to illuminate in an appealing and relevant way.
Recently, I experienced it when I stumbled upon Sydney Finkelstein's book "Superbosses". Based on numerous examples of superbosses in a variety of fields - ranging from music, american football and the restaurant business to marketing and other professions where business leadership is a more conventional topic - Finkelstein details what makes these leaders so excellent, causing the success of their own business, and members of their staff to later successfully spread like wildfire as leaders in the same industry.
Finkelstein does it so enthusiastically that it can make anyone want to, if not develop superboss personality traits, then certainly work for a superboss - or wish that one's boss developed that kind of personality.
I at least could easily find someone for whom to place this book under their Christmas tree.
(Translated from Noget om fremragende ledere)

On the topic of empty calories

Some time ago in a radio broadcast, I heard the Danish term "pædagogsandwich" (in English, it would be something like a "teacher sandwich") in connection to the topic of feedback - on how to deliver a message, which in this context was described as negative, between two positive things; in the same manner as in a sandwich, the meaty part which is to give energy comes between the two pieces of soft, sweet bread. As the slight sneering term suggests, it's not necessarily something that should be covered with positive connotations - because it so easily becomes a mechanical construction, where the person giving the feedback frantically searches for parts to obey this sandwich construction.
Not much later than I had heard about the teacher sandwich, one of my sons returned from scouting to tell about "Grandma's Law" - on how to make evaluations with a set of three good things and then a proposal for improvement. It seems better to me - also because there can easily be found room for further development, so the 3 + 1 thing can be followed more or less strictly.
But the bottom line must be that the feedback works best when both parties, the giving and the receiving one, acknowledge that there are two types of feedback; affirmative (what should be maintained) and developmental (what can be improved) feedback - there is no such thing as positive and negative criticism; and in fact the developmental feedback is the one with the greatest potential to be positive, because it is the feedback one can learn the most from. If I am told in the right way, I get so much more from knowing in which areas I can improve myself, than to knowing where I am "good enough".
(Translated from Noget om tomme kalorier, originally published August 10, 2014)