Eng
Eng
Senior management-consultant (organisational psychology, mental health)
From the point of view of relationship psychology, our lives are largely determined by the style of our relationships with other people and how we want to see our place in a world that is constantly changing. The answer to these two questions determines to some extent the direction of our lives. There is no simple rational solution here. It is complex and is influenced by our upbringing, experience, childhood and, among other things, genetic factors.
The relationship matrix discussed in the article is based on the concept of the authors of “Humanistic Leadership Psychology” (Michel Paschen, Erich Diemeyer), where relationships are viewed from the point of view of two polarities. Specifically, we seek close relationships with other people and therefore strive for intimacy and involvement in relationships. Or we may want to separate ourselves from others and strive for individuality and autonomy. Thus, relationship-oriented individuals are open, team-oriented, and easily gain the trust of other team members, while autonomy-oriented individuals are individualistic, more competitive, and constantly strive to stand out from others.
Naturally, this orientation is expressed in different doses among individuals and can vary depending on the context. In some situations we may want closeness, and in others we may want separation. However, in individuals a leading orientation is often noticeable. This is especially noticeable during conflicts. If we observe the people around us and their relationship styles, we will undoubtedly discover the direction of a person's inner compass - individuality, difference and competition, or intimacy and inclusion. There are people who are characterized by the extremes of these two poles, so they are not able to distinguish themselves from others or do not know how to establish relationships.
These two orientations have their own fears. Relationship-oriented people fear loneliness and isolation. People are focused on autonomy - the fear of losing individuality and specialness. As strong as this fear is, so strong and visible is the energy that people expend trying to please and be accepted by others. With the fear of the other polarity, energy is spent on being the center of attention and emphasizing one's superiority whenever possible. These behavioral tendencies have a huge impact on our lives, including our leadership style.
To recognize a tendency in yourself, it is enough to ask the following questions: what is more important to me? Close, open, trusting relationships, common interests, equality with others, a sense of belonging, altruism or, more importantly, distinguishing oneself, achieving more, individuality and a life noticeably different from the lives of others.
The behavioral patterns that characterize both trends are presented in more detail below.
Relationship orientation
The main fear is loneliness and isolation.
When this orientation is strong:
Seeks intimacy with others;
Seeks tasks that are meaningful and help others;
He is open and sensitive to other people;
Emotionally attached to others and forgives other people's mistakes;
In relation to others he is inclined to altruism, communicates peacefully and modestly;
Prefers moral and humane behavior;
Suffering when he feels distance and rejection;
Tries to create a harmonious atmosphere in cooperation;
Doesn't criticize others.
Autonomy orientation:
The main fear is a lack of individuality and significance.
When this orientation is strong:
Seeks admiration and recognition in the eyes of others;
Particular importance is attached to unusualness and individuality;
Emphasizes the difference between them and others;
Extremely confident;
Avoids dependence on others;
Emotionally distant from others;
Treats others with criticism and skepticism;
Copes with conflicts without feeling significant personal burden;
In many situations, there is a feeling of competition with others.
The second fundamental question concerns our identity in a changing world. We can answer this question from two polarities. At one end of the continuum is creating a computational, predictive and manageable framework for yourself in a changing world. This pole is called the balance orientation. People with this orientation seek rules, regularity, predictability, and structure. The second polarity of the continuum is stimulation orientation. Such individuals want to fully experience the vicissitudes of the world. They look for novelty and change in everything; they are characterized by adventurism and curiosity.
Like the polarities of relationship orientation, these directions also have their own fears. Balance-oriented people fear uncertainty, spontaneity, and therefore freedom. This fear is addressed by creating an island of rules, control and predictability.
On the other hand, stimulation-oriented people have a fear of conforming to rules and being static. The worst thing that can happen in their life is to miss out on something important or great. Their fear is attachment, limitation and the impossibility of freedom and spontaneity.
If we look closely, we will find people around us who suffer from a lack of regularity in their lives, when unexpected events require them to be flexible, or when things don't go according to plan. Additionally, there are people around us who really worry about committing themselves to something or someone, be it a life partner, a lifestyle choice, or just a commitment. These people suffer when they have the impression that there is a closed door in their life that cannot be opened.
Focus on balance
The main fear is uncertainty and disorientation.
When this orientation is strong:
Striving for order and security;
Performs tasks conscientiously, thoroughly and tirelessly;
Looking for consistency;
Has established habits;
Is careful about risks;
Acts reliably and conscientiously;
Insists on compliance with rules and punishment for deviations from the rules;
Constantly controlling other people.
stimulus orientation
The main fear is obedience to rules and inviolability.
When this orientation is strong:
Avoids commitment and leaves many options open;
Copes with a variety of situations flexibly and spontaneously;
Leave the past behind and try something new;
Takes risks;
He approaches new topics and challenges with imagination and curiosity;
Ends relationships and starts new ones if it offers new experiences and adventures.
All orientations manifest themselves in each of us with different priorities and to varying degrees, and, naturally, this also applies to leadership relationships - leadership relationships, their different motivations and behavior patterns pass through these four orientations. Our dominant characteristics are most clearly felt in conflict. Therefore, it is especially important for leaders to understand the basic orientations and polarities in themselves, which in itself makes it easier to see and accept others, as well as prevent conflicts and manage them effectively.
Believe in yourselves, dream big, and soar high because the truth is, for the potential of both men and women, the sky is the limit!
On November 8, a joint conference of the United Nations Association of Georgia (UNA) and the World Federation of United Nations Associations Partnership for Impact Tbilisi Conference: from Blueprints to Breakthroughs took place.
The conference included a panel discussion "The Role of Partnerships in Advancing Gender Equality", where attention was focused on the multifaceted aspects of gender equality and women's empowerment. Panelists emphasized the need for women's active participation in public life, which leads to more stable societies. Challenging conditioned beliefs about male superiority was encouraged, and opportunities and empowerment were advocated without judgment. The need to support women to break the glass ceiling was acknowledged, and the importance of empowering women in technology was highlighted. Overall, the panel emphasized the importance of collaboration and empowerment as essential tools for advancing gender equality.
Tinatin Rukhadze, the founder of ACT, business leader and management consultant, served as a keynote speaker on the panel. During her speech, titled "From Self-Doubt to Success: Empowering Women”, Tinatin Rukhadze addressed the prevalent challenges and barriers often experienced by women.
We're thrilled to share Tinatin Rukhadze’s inspiring speech, “From Self-Doubt to Success: Empowering Women,” in its entirety, unaltered and powerful, as she shares her journey and insights!
Let me share my personal story, one that I hope will inspire you. I was fortunate to be raised by an incredibly strong woman, my grandmother, who played a leading role in our family. From a young age, I never perceived women as weak. This belief became the guiding principle of my life, and it led to remarkable journeys and accomplishments. Yet, to my surprise, one day I discovered that the most significant obstacle to my personal growth and the realization of my potential was tied to my own identity as a woman.
We founded our company, ACT, in 2002, and in the years that followed, we experienced rapid growth. By 2008, we became the largest research company in Georgia, and by 2014, we had expanded to include offices in Baku and Almaty. However, from 2014, our company's growth began to stagnate, and the old formula for success no longer yielded results. As the company's managing partner and visionary leader, I was deeply troubled by this. I continually asked myself, "What are we doing wrong? What changes are needed to reignite our growth?" But the answers remained elusive.
One day, I traveled to our Almaty Office for business. I chose to utilize the four long hours of the flight for a deep introspection. My thoughts were fixated on the same unresolved questions. "Why can't I generate new ideas? Why can't I find a solution?" I kept asking myself. After a series of "whys," my subconscious delivered a shocking response: "because you are a woman." I was taken aback by my own thoughts. How could I, an advocate for the strength and equality of women, harbor such limiting beliefs? I recalled instances where I had been told, "you have the brain of a man," "you think like a man," "you are brave like a man," and I realized that deep down, I had been conditioned to believe in the superiority of men. Despite "thinking like a man," I am not a man. So, I had unwittingly limited my own success, believing that, as a strong woman, I could never achieve as much as a man could.
The discovery and subsequent release of this limiting belief brought about radical changes in both my life and my business. With a new vision, we transformed ACT's business model and developed a consulting division. Today, the company is three times larger than it was in 2014, operating in 34 countries, and we believe there are no limits to our growth.
My journey and interactions with other women entrepreneurs have taught me three important lessons:
First: The most significant barrier to women's development is often their own limiting beliefs, which can be deeply ingrained and go unrecognized. These beliefs are often fostered by family, education, societal norms, and real-life inequalities. Common limiting beliefs include "I'm not good enough," "I don't deserve more success," "I can't do it," "I can't change," "It's not worth it," "I can't trust people," and "No one will help me."
The second major barrier is the fear of failure, the fear of societal condemnation (fear of being labeled as inadequate wives or mothers), and even the fear of success itself (fearing significant changes and societal disapproval for being seen as ambitious careerists).
Lastly, the third barrier is the lack of a supportive environment, be it in the form of people or systems that empower women, provide access to resources, or offer emotional support.
In closing, to empower women, I encourage you:
Don't say no; give us a chance.
Don't test us; share with us.
Don't judge us; empower us.
And, to all women, I would say: believe in yourselves, dream big, and soar high because the truth is, for the potential of both men and women, the sky is the limit!
If the growth of your company is not proportional to the growth of the result, If synergy is not created in the team, they do not talk about their mistakes and do not share their experiences. Then your organization may have an silo mentality and the organization itself is an silo organization.
A silo organization refers to a situationally small organization, divided into small, mechanical groups, where employees create a subculture adapted to them and, in some cases, develop terminology, a colloquial language characteristic of the subculture.
A subculture can be formed by departments, organizational ranks, and/or even a few individuals within a department. The steps, changes and sentiments made in such subcultures are unknown to the other group.
The formation of mechanical subcultures, the same silo subculture, is a hindrance to the organization because it separates it from the overall purpose or mission of the organization. At the same time, they operate with their own micro-interests in mind, reducing efficiency and synergy at the organizational or departmental level.
Silo organization - formed by the style of silo thinking, originating from the archaic past, tribal principles.
People still retain the impulses of tribal organization and tend to form a small subculture, have a sense of belonging to this subculture and enter into competition with another subculture, “resist” it, these impulses dictate interaction in small subcultures and other subcultures. - Competition with cultures[1].
When an organization lacks the opportunity for communication and quality connections at a cultural or system level, when the organizational culture is not based on respectful relationships, and when senior management rewards only results-oriented and competitive behavior, it reinforces the silo mentality. For example, the principle of competition between departments increases disunity and kills the desire to cooperate. Tolerance of such an environment by management causes significant damage to the culture of the organization and leads to increased silo thinking/mentality.
Interestingly, silo thinking/mentality can form unintentionally when one team, a department, tries to quickly improve efficiency but fails to consider the processes and activities of other teams.
Silo thinking has a major impact on organizational performance and can take several forms:
Low employee motivation and high staff turnover
Most of the team that leaves a job within a year of starting feels isolated, lacking the ability to collaborate and lacking a sense of unity with the team or leader.
Inefficiency, increasing number of unsuccessful projects
Teams with a silo mentality often fail due to a lack of communication and reluctance to share expertise, and their project completion rate is low and/or slow.
Missed opportunity
Silo mentality perceives the environment from a narrow perspective. Such teams are less likely to accept and share the experiences and perspectives of a new team member. In such an organization, there may be a feeling of missed opportunities, which can be expressed in words and/or actions, for example: “I already tried this method and it didn’t work,” “I tried talking many times, but it didn’t work,” etc.
Lack of alternative way to solve the problem.
Due to lack of communication and silo mentality, companies and teams miss out on alternative ways to solve problems and achieve goals. They lose the opportunity to creatively analyze the current situation.
There are several ways to change silo mentality, all of which involve improving collaboration and communication.
Let's look at some possible steps to help you change your silo organization:
Understanding the mission and vision of the organization by the team
An important way to overcome silo mentality is to define a clear, vibrant, authentic mission and vision. An equally important step in defining the mission and vision is to involve senior management in the development process and explain the importance of the mission and vision to each team member, showing their role in achieving the larger goal.
Leader's role
Silo mentality can be changed through an engaged and engaged leader who encourages employees. Ask questions and create appropriate platforms for them.
To change silo mentality, it is important for a leader to be a role model, empathetic and open to employees' ideas and initiatives.
Changing components of organizational culture
Changing silo mentality is very difficult without rethinking and changing the organizational culture and values in the organization. The main principle is to discover values that are organic to the organization and at the same time define success, emphasize it and take into account it in every process or standard of the organization.
In building culture, it is important to replace negative or neutral connection (causing silos) with high quality connection (HQC) in the organization. Also informal leaders in the organization, the so-called Involvement of cultural intermediaries and their support in changing the thinking of subcultures. Emphasizing the importance of cultural intermediaries in shaping organizational systems and making them a core component of the system.
Mobile organizational structure
It is an organizational structure that facilitates the organization and ability of departments to work together. The best example of such an organizational structure is the flexible structure.
When reviewing the structure and changing it, it is important to identify challenges in the organization, successful and unsuccessful examples of communication and collaboration, and establish an inclusive framework that will help:
• Establishing clearly defined roles and responsibilities;
• creating collaboration platforms and simple processes to get work done quickly;
• clearly define the responsibilities and powers of the organization's middle managers and strengthen them;
• clearly establishing the management style in the organization and uniting people around a common goal.
Cross-functional teams (also called tiger teams)
This arrangement of teams is fully consistent with modern business standards and involves bringing together people from different departments, functions, skills and knowledge to implement one common project and/or goal. The composition of cross-functional teams can vary depending on the goals and objectives. There are two types of cross-functional teams (“tiger teams”). In one case, the team meets once when a big problem arises. An example of this is the principle of teamwork in crisis management. In the second case, the team is more permanent in nature - for example, where a person on the team has a role parallel to his day-to-day responsibilities in the organization, for example, in an organization, the person may be a financial manager and at the same time be a member of a cross-functional team formed to share experience, whose task is development of organizational development and exchange systems. In both cases, periodic rotation of team members is desirable.
Information flow
To avoid organizational silos, it is very effective to use a common management platform that will share news/information across the organization and reflect the status of completed and/or ongoing projects. It is also important to have a communications scheme in the organization, which will detail the principle of managing information flows, as well as the type and frequency of information dissemination within the company.
[1] The book "Cultural Puzzle" by Mario Mos, Derek Newberry and Greg Urban.
A majority of the population wants the country to gain candidate status for EU membership, although only half the country hopes this will happen this year.
Desire and hope
A final decision on granting Georgia EU candidate status is due in December, but before then the European Commission will publish its annual report on enlargement, and the decision will largely be based on these assessments. There is one day left before the report is published.
The research company ACT conducted a study of Georgia's attitude towards accepting EU candidate status.
The population survey was conducted throughout the country on October 20-31, 2023, with 809 respondents aged 18-65 living in Georgia interviewed by telephone, with an overall margin of error of 3.5%.
According to the survey, 9 out of 10 Georgian citizens (87%) want the country to receive candidate status for EU membership. According to the study, 92% of residents of Tbilisi and 85% of the regions want to obtain candidate status for EU membership.
Almost half of the population of Georgia - 45% believe that this year the country will receive candidate status for EU membership. In the regions they are optimistic - 47% believe that the country will receive EU membership status this year, while in the capital expectations are lower - only 4 out of 10 citizens expect candidate status for EU membership this year.
EU membership means a developed future for the country.
The benefits of the country's accession to the European Union are obvious to the population of Georgia. According to a study conducted by ACT last year (June 2022), for 90% of the country's population, EU membership means a developed future for Georgia.
Citizens surveyed associated membership with a means of protection against Russian military aggression (66%), 8 out of 10 citizens believed that granting candidate membership status would be a clear signal sent to Russia that Georgia is committed to a Western course.
That is why last year's results coincide with the main data of this year's study and show the unshakable will of the Georgian people to become a member of the European family. According to a study conducted in 2022, every second citizen expected to receive candidate status for EU membership. According to the survey, the top three reasons for not receiving status were: violation of human rights (27%), an unclear position towards Ukraine in the Russian-Ukrainian war (26%) and problems in the judicial system (26%). ).
83% of the population considered obtaining EU candidate status an important event and believed that Georgia was closer than ever to EU membership. Citizens believe that if Georgia does not receive candidate membership status in the near future, it will not have such a chance for a long time.
The choice of the people and the merit of the people
Last year's poll also showed who, in people's opinion, is responsible for not achieving EU candidate status - four out of 10 citizens (38%) believed that the responsibility lies with the Georgian government, and if the EU decides to give the country the status, 40% respondents believe that this will be the merit of the Georgian people.
On November 8, the European Commission will publish its annual report on enlargement, a finding that will form the basis for a decision scheduled for December. We already know what the majority of the country's population wants, but we do not know whether the expectations of optimistic citizens who believe that the glass is half full and the country is definitely on the threshold of Europe will be met.