Ek is nogal ‘n groot aanhanger van die huweliksterapeut Dr John Gottman se werk. Dr Gottman is ‘n emeritus professor by die universiteit van Washington. Hy is in 2007 bekroon as een van die 10 invloedrykste terapeute van die afgelope 25 jaar. Hy het bekendheid verwerf met sy vermoë om met 94% akkuraatheid te voorspel of ‘n egpaar se huwelik in ‘n egskeiding gaan ontaard of nie.

Hy meet dit aan die hand van ‘n 3 uurlange ondersoek. Daar is 4 merkers in die huwelik wat getoets word:

  • Kritiek:Volgens Gottman is huwelike wat minder as 5 komplimente vir elke kritiese opmerking uiter, ‘n risiko vir egskeiding. Verder kyk hy nie net na hoeveel kritiek uitgespreek word nie, maar ook na hoe aanvallend dit gedoen word.
  • Minagtende gedrag (Contempt): Watter minagtende gedrag is daar in die kommunikasie tussen die huweliksmaats teenwoordig? Is daar sarkasme? Rol die een beterweterig oë vir die ander een? Is daar snedige opmerkings oor mekaar se familie? Hoe meer die minagtende gedrag, hoe groter is die risiko vir egskeiding.
  • Selfregverdiging (defensiveness): Is daar die openheid om ‘n probleem aan te spreek, of spring die een dadelik op sy perdjie? Is daar begrip dat aksies ‘n maat kon seermaak, of verontskuldig die persone die heeltyd hulself? Party sal selfs die blaam terugprojekteer. Hierdie is alles merkers van ‘n ongesonde huwelik.
  • Emosionele ontoereikendheid (Stonewalling): Gee huweliksmaats mekaar die koue skouer? Is daar kommunikasie of ignoreer hulle mekaar? Hoe meer die een huweliksmaat emosioneel ontoereikend optree, hoe slegter teken is dit vir die herstel van die huwelik.

Hierde model van Gottman het my al baie aan die dink gesit. Eintlik is sy huweliksraad nie net van toepassing op huwelike nie, maar op menseverhoudinge oor die algemeen. Jy sou dieselfde stel merkers kon gebruik om byvoorbeeld werksbevrediging te voorspel. Niemand van ons hou immers van ‘n werksomgewing waar mense mekaar meer kritiseer as komplimenteer nie (terloops, Harvard Business Review het al hieroor navorsing gedoen); Of dink net hoe breek dit die moraal in ‘n werksomgewing as iemand die heeltyd sarkasties optree (minagtende gedrag). Dus, Dr Gottman se model sou nie net as barometer van huweliksbevrediging kon dien nie, maar ook vir werksomgewings – en anders areas waar mense met mekaar moet saamleef.

Dit het my met die gedagte laat begin speel, wat sou gebeur as ons Gottman se toetse sou gebruik om die gesondheid van versoening in Suid Afrika te meet? Teen die tyd ken jy my as iemand wat uitgesproke positief is oor ons reënboognasie. Maar ek moet eerlik wees dat ek nie aldag hou van wat ek sien nie… Continue Reading…

sin-van-die-lewe

Maar hoe vind jy jou gawe of jou lewensroeping vir hierdie lewe? Daar is ‘n Venn-diagram wat dalk ‘n baie sinvolle oefening vir jou kan wees…

Die eerste sirkel bevat jou waardesisteem. Dit is die dinge waaraan en waarin jy glo. Dit is dinge wat vir jou belangrik is en eintlik jou lewensuitkyk bepaal. Solank as wat jy vanuit hierdie sirkel leef en beweeg, sal jy lewensvervulling beleef. Mens raak sielsongelukkig as daar van jou dinge verwag word wat indruis teen jou waardesisteem.

Die tweede sirkel bevat alles wat jou uniek maak. Jou sterkpunte, ervaring, dinge waaroor jy passievol voel – selfs jou foute of seerkry in die lewe. Mens sou kon sê dat dit die dinge in die lewe is waaroor jy as rentmeester aangestel is.

Die derde sirkel bevat jou konteks. Op ‘n manier wil jy altyd hê dat jou roeping relevant sal wees vir jou konteks. So hoe lyk dit rondom jou? Wat sien jy raak? Wat is die nood of die behoeftes rondom jou op die oomblik?

roeping

En nou kom die vraag hoe mens die informasie in hierdie 3 sirkels met mekaar kan “trou”. Waar vind oorvleueling plaas? Dit is die plek waar jy op hierdie stadium van jou lewe jou roeping behoort uit te leef.

So gesien, is roeping iets wat altyd aan die verander is. Waar jou waardesisteem waarskynlik meer konstant is, is mens se roeping gebonde aan ‘n tydvak. Dit is onlosmaaklik verbind aan jou persoonlike verhaal en jou konteks. Dikwels sal jy vind dat soos wat jou eie lewensreis verder ontvou – en jou konteks verander – jou roeping ook kan verskuif.

With the Paris attack still fresh is our memory,one wonders what is the best way to react to terror attacks? We need to guide people. We need to give them direction. But where to?

The thought of revenge comes naturally. Obviously the man on the street does not have the means to take revenge on ISIS, but still… it is very easy to hate. It would thus be very easy to respond to such a tragedy as the Paris attack, by allowing hate speech toward Islam. But is that the best we can do? I think this video is probably the best response one can give – and that is why you won’t find me spewing hate towards Islam.

Excellent short video about Daniel Goleman’s insight into leadership.

According to Goleman the 5 Components of EQ are:

  • Self-awareness
  • Self-regulation
  • Motivation
  • Empathy
  • Social skill

Patrick Lencioni discusses the 5 dysfunctions that can occur in teams. I found this EXTREMELY helpful.

You would do well if you put the time aside and watch the video in full.

 

The 5 dysfunctions of a team are:

  1. Absence of trust
  2. Fear of conflict
  3. Lack of commitment
  4. Unwillingness to hold each other accountable
  5. Inattention to results

 

I recently stumbled upon a phenomenon called the “Bystander Effect” and I’m totally fascinated by it. Have a look at the video footage of the social experiment…

There are several factors to ponder about when thinking about the “Bystander Effect’s” implication for leaders:

Asking for help

For instance, if you are a leader asking for help from the community, it seems that it would be the wrong approach to come over as needy or desperate. People don’t want to get involved in someone else’s problem. Nobody wants to be part of a loosing team. Even though you might have a legitimate problem, rather invite people to be part of a solution.

Creating perspective

Another thing that comes to mind, is the principle of the two conflicting urges, mentioned in the footage. On the one hand people have the urge to help and do the right thing. But on the other hand they want to stay inside the norm of the group. If the group doesn’t help, the individual will refrain from helping too. For that reason it is very important to create positive group ethics. If the individual’s perception of the group is one of apathy, he/she will shy away of throwing his/her weight in. If you can manage though to tell a positive story of how the group is already involved in relieving the specific need – or even how the group has relieved need in the past and hence we are counting on the group to do it again, the momentum of individuals “buy-in” will escalate.

The guts to break free from the group.

And on another level the “Bystander Effect” gives us a picture of true leadership. Numerous people will walk past someone lying on the pavement (the problem), or they will actively see someone stealing something from someone – but because the group is not doing anything, they are too afraid of stepping out of the group’s norm.

UNTIL one person steps in. You only need one person to stop and help, and then the others will follow. You need one person who’s urge to help is bigger than the urge to fit in. And that one person is the true leader.

I don’t know if you are familiar with Everett Rogers’ “Innovation Adoption Model“, but it truly is a helpful visual aid if you are steering change – especially if you are discouraged.

The bell curve actually speaks for itself, but in essence it says that any and all change (steered by 2,5% Innovators) will be greeted by 4 distinct groups of people: early adopters, early majority, late majority and then the laggards or the immovables.

innovation_adoption_curve_rogers

If you allow me to oversimplify the model, I’ll say that it helps us in keeping a realistic expectation of the change we want to see. It also helps us to identify the areas where we need to spend time, communication, effort etc. I have found for example that a plan or idea can be the best there is, but if I don’t invest energy in convincing enough early adopters, it will fail. Early adopters tend to be the opinion makers in a community.

This model has helped me numerous times in the past in seeing where the problem in the system lies. I hope it will help you too,

6a00d8345599ab69e20162fe9c8db8970d

Hoe lyk ‘n predikant se dag?” is ‘n vraag wat ek al baie teëgekom het. In hierdie inskrywing vertel ek vir jou hoe ek my program ingekleur het terwyl ek in Dalpark gemeente was.

Ek skuif eersdaags Witrivier toe en kan agterkom dat my program daar baie anders gaan lyk as in Dalpark. Witrivier gemeente werk immers met ander prosesse en strategieë. Die leierskapsmodel lyk anders en my verantwoordelikhede gaan verskil van dit wat ek in Dalpark gedoen het.

Oorsig oor werksure

Predikantwees is een van daardie beroepe waar jy óf kan lui wegsteek óf jou kan dood werk – sonder dat enige iemand regtig agterkom. Baie hang van jou selfdissipline en integriteit af, asook van jou vermoë om vir jouself werk uit te dink.

Ek is ‘n Continue Reading…

If you are in ministry, the reality is that you are at risk of burning out.

  • No, you are not exempt from it because you are stronger than others. In fact, you are actually more prone to burnout if you are a driven high capacity leader.
  • No, prayer alone will not prevent burnout. You need to actively guard against this pitfall.

Wayne Cordeiro talked at the 2006 leadership summit about his own burnout. I found his vulnerability extremely helpful.

Have you ever noticed that after you’ve received negative feedback, it’s very difficult to appreciate good news?

It has happened to me countless of times and I’m sure you’ve experienced it too: Ten people congratulate you – and one criticizes you. Who do you remember? The isolated incident of negativity!

Leaders who constantly push forward, who challenge the status quo, who propose change, need to put up with negative feedback A LOT. If you don’t watch yourself, it can really drag you down. Continue Reading…