About
Polymath product pirate captain, building resilient humane companies from 0 to 1 to scale…
Services
Articles by ✨Sascha
-
‘Hybrid work’ is bullshit. So is ‘remote work’.
‘Hybrid work’ is bullshit. So is ‘remote work’.
Did you already realise? ‘Hybrid work’ is bullshit. So is ‘remote work’.
18 Comments -
A Pledge for Impact
A Pledge for Impact
With a sense of urgency Berlin, May 2019 Evidence has been growing far beyond doubt: we fucked up. With human-made…
5 Comments -
Your Business Needs Design — But Design is Not Enough
Your Business Needs Design — But Design is Not Enough
Designers need to grow beyond design to unlock their full value for their organisation. Does yours have what it needs…
Activity
5K followers
-
✨Sascha Brossmann reposted this✨Sascha Brossmann reposted thisAnd to close off this roasting series, here we are with Spiral Dynamics. Several years back, I sat in meetings where people were colour shamed for being red or blue and rewarded for reaching green or yellow. There was a colour wheel on the table. Every hiring decision for managers ran through it. The framework was directly plugged into the "people values". You know where this is going right? Clare Graves was a professor of psychology at Union College in New York who spent thirty years on a meticulous, inductive study of how human value systems develop. He was cautious, thorough, and reportedly distressed by how quickly serious psychological work got stripped of its nuance. He suffered a brain injury in 1975, abandoned his manuscript, and died in 1986 having never published his complete theory. He never used colours. Don Beck encountered Graves's work in 1974 and spent years applying it, most notably making over sixty trips to South Africa during the transition from apartheid. The colours were Beck's deliberate invention, chosen specifically to replace racial categories with value systems, to get away from judging people by characteristics they were born with. He wanted leaders to see patterns of thinking rather than skin. That was the point. The colours were designed to dissolve ranking by birth, not enable it. Beck and his collaborator Christopher Cowan published Spiral Dynamics in 1996. By 1999 they had split acrimoniously over the model's direction. Ken Wilber absorbed it into his integral theory, adding spiritual dimensions Graves never intended. Multiple competing trademarked versions now exist. The model that started as rigorous empirical research had become a franchise with factions. What arrived in organisations was a hierarchy dressed in rainbow clothing. The colours invented to escape racial profiling became a new kind of profiling. Red and blue were primitive. Yellow and turquoise were enlightened. Organisations used it to sort people, judge people, and signal which employees were sufficiently evolved for leadership. A tool designed to see value systems became a tool to rank human worth. Graves was explicit that the levels were not a ladder of better and worse people. They were descriptions of value systems responding to life conditions — fluid, contextual, reversible. A person was not their colour. And yet the colour ended up on the wall as a marker for worth. What Graves actually offers, if you go back to the source, is a reminder that people's value systems are responses to conditions, not fixed expressions of who they are. Change the conditions and you change what becomes possible. Which is, as it happens, the same thing every entry in this series has been pointing toward. The person in front of you is not their colour. They are not their type, their stage, or their score. They are a human being responding to the conditions they are living inside. Start there.
-
✨Sascha Brossmann reposted this✨Sascha Brossmann reposted thisEveryone says it...“Happy employees perform better.” The evidence? ...it’s not that simple. A meta-analysis (Panda et al., 2025) of 113 studies (~38,000 employees) found a moderate link between job satisfaction and performance (r ≈ 0.34) That’s not weak...But it’s far from decisive. Here’s what most people miss... Satisfaction doesn’t drive performance equally...Context does. ⬆️ Stronger in service roles (where behaviour is visible and relational) ⬇️ Weaker in manufacturing (where tasks are structured and constrained) ⬆️ Stronger in individualistic cultures ⬇️ Weaker in collectivist cultures 🎈 Inflated when you ask people how well they think they perform So what? It means this... You don’t get performance by making people “happy.” You get performance when the system allows capability to show up. Satisfaction is a signal...Not a mechanism. It reflects things like.. autonomy feedback recognition meaningful work But those don’t improve performance by magic...They improve performance because they change the conditions under which behaviour happens. And that’s the shift most organisations still haven’t made. 👉 They measure engagement. 👉 They run surveys. 👉 They launch initiatives. 🚨 But they rarely ask: “Does our system actually allow people to perform at their best?”
-
✨Sascha Brossmann reposted this✨Sascha Brossmann reposted thisOnly 5 to 20% of people are predominantly self-interested. So why does economics still teach homo economicus as the rule? A student said it last week, in a master class on trust: "But homo economicus is just realistic, isn't it?" She was not wrong to recognise the model. She was wrong to treat it as anthropology. Somewhere between the first economics lecture and the boardroom, an assumption stops being an assumption. It becomes the description. The simplification hardens into anthropology. Cooperation without contracts starts to feel naive. Trust without monitoring starts to feel reckless. Generosity without strategic return starts to feel soft. This is not a complaint about economics. It is a question about how knowledge travels. Fehr and Charness reviewed three decades of evidence in 2024. The conclusion is precise. In broad population samples, only 5 to 20% of people are predominantly self-interested. The large majority show distributional concerns, inequality aversion, or altruism. Homo economicus is not the rule. He is the exception. But here is the troubling second finding. In student samples, the share of predominantly self-interested individuals jumps to 29 to 58%. And MBA students, whose curricula are steeped in economics, cheat more on exams than law students or other non-business students. The exception, it seems, is being produced. And once produced, it stops being questioned. The assumption becomes the air people breathe. Nobody argues with air. So why does the model remain unchallenged? Three reasons, all institutional: → Repetition without competitors. Four years of one anthropology, taught semester after semester, makes the simplification feel like a description. → Language without alternative. Principal-agent. Optimisation. Strategic interaction. A vocabulary that has no opposite leaves managers without words for stewardship, vocation, or care. → Institutions without friction. When organisations already assume opportunism and respond with controls, no one ever has reason to test the assumption. What can we do? Teach economics alongside other accounts of the person. Recover words like commitment, responsibility, integrity as working terms, not Sunday vocabulary. And build organisations that do not begin with the assumption of betrayal. Which assumption in your industry has quietly stopped being an assumption? #trust #leadership #organisationalbehavior
-
✨Sascha Brossmann reposted this✨Sascha Brossmann reposted this𝗗𝗲𝗻 𝗟𝗲𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗴𝘀𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳, 𝗺𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗻, 𝗴𝗮𝗯 𝗲𝘀 𝘃𝗼𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟬 𝗝𝗮𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗻 𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗵𝘁. Beginnen wir mit einer Tatsache, die niemand bestreitet, sobald sie ausgesprochen ist: Niemand leistet alleine. Jeder Beitrag, den wir in einer Organisation erbringen, hängt an Voraussetzungen, die wir nicht selbst geschaffen haben. An Vorgängern, die das Wissen aufgebaut haben. An Kollegen, die parallel arbeiten. An Strukturen, Werkzeugen, Beziehungen. An einer Sprache, die wir geerbt haben. Wissensarbeit ist immer Teamproduktion, und das gilt selbst für die scheinbar einsamste Forscherin am Schreibtisch. Das ist eine ontologische Grundtatsache über die Art, wie Beitrag in Organisationen entsteht. Leistung ist relational. Sie entsteht zwischen Menschen, nicht in ihnen. Trotzdem operieren wir mit einem Begriff, der genau das Gegenteil behauptet. Die Historikerin Nina Verheyen hat in ihrem Buch "Die Erfindung der Leistung" rekonstruiert, dass der heutige Begriff erst im 19. Jahrhundert entstand. Vorher war Leistung an die Sache gebunden. An gutes Handwerk. An Sorgfalt. An den Werksinn. An gemeinsame Traditionen der Exzellenz. Sie war kein Sortierungsprinzip, sondern ein Praxisgut. Was wir heute Leistung nennen, also die individuell zurechenbare, messbare, vergleichbare Einzelanstrengung, kam mit der Industrialisierung, mit der Schule, mit dem Wohlfahrtsstaat. Drei Institutionen, die Sortierung brauchten. Sie haben den Begriff erfunden. Daraus folgt eine weitere scharfe Einsicht: Performance Measurement wie wir es heute kennen bildet Leistung nicht ab. Es bringt sie hervor. Wer eine Skala definiert, entscheidet, was als Leistung gilt und was unsichtbar bleibt. Wer Ratings einführt, schreibt fest, dass es Hochleister und Niedrigleister gibt. Wer Output zählt, lässt das Ungezählte aus dem Bild fallen. Die Mess-Werkzeuge sind nicht neutral. Sie sind konstitutiv. Verheyen erklärt das an Beispielen: Bis heute lebt die Schule von der Fiktion, die Leistung gehe der Bewertung voraus statt umgekehrt. Der Satz steht für den ganzen Apparat. Beurteilungen, Performance Reviews, Talent Pools, Boni, alles operiert mit dieser Fiktion. Was heisst das für die Praxis? Wer eine Leistungskultur baut, baut nicht etwas Vorhandenes nach. Er gestaltet eine Reduktion. Er entscheidet, welche Form von Beitrag sichtbar wird. Welche unsichtbar bleibt. Welche moralisch aufgeladen wird. Welche ignoriert. Das ist eigentlich vermessen gerade in Zeiten, wenn wir nicht wissen, was wir morgen brauchen. Das führt zu Versteinerung. Was wir als Leistung sehen wird so zur Gestaltungsfrage, nicht zur Messfrage. Sie gehört in eine aufgeklärte Geschäftsleitung. HR-Tools können sie nicht ersetzen. Quellen: Verheyen 2018. Modell 2019. Townley 1993. #ResponsibleLeadership #Leadership #Trust #PerformanceManagement #HR
-
✨Sascha Brossmann reposted this✨Sascha Brossmann reposted thisRecent research into the Dutch workforce suggests that middle management does more than just route information and support personal development: it can shape our democracy. In a wide ranging study, employees who were silenced or disciplined for critiquing company decisions showed a higher propensity toward populist political beliefs. A similar study found that "intense" suppression of worker opinions fostered authoritarian attitudes, even when controlling for an individual's pre-existing personality traits. Conversely, a study of German employees revealed that those who experienced democratic processes at work were statistically significantly less likely to support right-wing populist parties. How does a workplace grievance turn into a political movement? This is the theorized mechanism: 🧨 Friction: An employee offers a critique of a leadership decision or organizational process. 🧯 Suppression: A supervisor shuts down the feedback or resorts to disciplinary action. 🌪️ Erosion: Trust in the company's leadership begins to evaporate. 🌡️ Generalization: This disillusionment with workplace authority is projected onto authority figures in other realms, including government. 🔥 Reaction: The employee becomes attracted to political "outsiders" who promise to punish the elites they feel have failed them. These findings are rooted in Political Socialization Theory, which posits that we don't form our worldviews in a vacuum. Through a process of generalization, we extrapolate our daily experiences-- from childhood, at school, and in the workplace-- into political beliefs. For decades, researchers have found that worker cooperatives tend to boost civic participation. Political scientists are only recently uncovering how negative workplace experiences might fuel specific, often radical, political movements. In light of this, one must wonder: what is the true cost of the "Great Man" leadership paradigm? By emphasizing the singular, unchecked will of the leader over the collective voice of the masses, we may risk eroding the civic disposition of our society.
-
✨Sascha Brossmann reposted this✨Sascha Brossmann reposted thisEver wonder why or how some of the dodgiest people seem to end up running the show? New research digs into exactly this — and it's kind of wild. A study just published in the European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology looked at what drives people to want to climb the corporate ladder, focusing on two personality traits from the HEXACO model: Honesty-Humility (are you a decent, modest person or out for yourself?) and Extraversion (outgoing or low-key?). Here's what they found: Lower honesty-humility = more ambition. People who are more self-serving and morally flexible want the corner office badly — because leadership comes with money, status, and power, which are very attractive if you like to exploit opportunities. Higher extraversion = more ambition too. Outgoing people love the social buzz of leadership. No surprise there. The plot twist: You'd expect being both low in honesty AND high in extraversion to make someone extra driven. But these traits actually work as substitutes — either one is enough to push ambition near its maximum. The genuinely humble, ethical folks? Less likely to put their hand up, and more likely to say no if asked. The researchers tried to confirm whether this ambition gap explains why the dodgy extraverts end up higher in the hierarchy. Results pointed the right way but weren't conclusive — a bigger study is needed. Here's the strategic advice orgs should take from this right now: Stop treating ambition and self-promotion as proxies for leadership potential. If the most motivated candidates are disproportionately the ones with questionable ethics, then your promotion process — if it rewards whoever shouts loudest — is quietly selecting for the wrong people. The fix isn't complicated, but it requires discipline: pair ambition assessments with structured interviews, 360-degree personality feedback, and integrity checks before you hand someone more power. And critically — actively identify and invest in your high honesty-humility talent. These people are unlikely to come to you. You have to go to them, remove friction from their path, and create environments where ethical leaders aren't penalised for not playing politics. A huge thank you to Bo Wang, Wendy Andrews, and Reinout E. de Vries for tackling a question that most of us have wondered about at some point in our careers. This is exactly the kind of research organisations need to be paying attention to. Delwyn Neill
-
✨Sascha Brossmann reposted this✨Sascha Brossmann reposted thisThe old Agile User Journey idea of “As a user, I want to.. to meet my.. need” was never great but AI might also add a perspective on asking why any human would want to do some tasks at all. So, instead, the more cynical phrase - “Does this have to be done by me?” • This? What is the goal and does the person care about it? • Have to? Is there a choice here for the person. A threat not an invitation? • Be done? Is the struggle and all that energy or activity needed? • By me? Does the individual need to be involved at all? Can it be delegated or shared? Some of the criticisms of AI as enabling Cognitive Surrender assume that the tasks are worth doing. What if we query whether there are Bullshit Experiences as there are BS Jobs? Things that shouldn’t be done or could be done without a human ever needing to be aware of them?
-
✨Sascha Brossmann reposted this✨Sascha Brossmann reposted thisYou can’t “motivate” someone into better performance... But you can design a system that makes high performance inevitable. That’s the shift most organisations miss. A recent (Haggar & Star, 2026) meta-analysis of 192 studies (~93,000 employees) shows performance doesn’t come from pushing harder… It comes from what sits upstream of behaviour. Here’s the mechanism... 👉 Leader behaviour shapes conditions 👉 Conditions determine psychological need satisfaction 👉 Need satisfaction drives motivation quality 👉 Motivation quality drives outcomes Not more motivation...Better motivation. When people experience... • Autonomy (control over how they work) • Competence (confidence in their ability) • Relatedness (genuine support around them) You unlock autonomous motivation...And that leads to: ⬆️ Engagement ⬆️ Job performance ⬆️ Wellbeing ⬇️ Burnout ⬇️ Turnover But here’s the catch...You can still get performance through pressure. Targets. Deadlines. Incentives. 🚨 But it comes at a cost...fatigue, fragility, and eventual failure under pressure. So the real question isn’t... “Are our people motivated?” It’s... “What system are they operating in?” Because behaviour is always a response to conditions. And most organisations are trying to fix behaviour…without ever diagnosing the system producing it. Capability isn’t the constraint...Access to capability is. And that’s where the real performance work sits. If you’re thinking about performance at a systems level, this is exactly the space I’m building into with behavioural readiness.
-
✨Sascha Brossmann posted thisRule of thumb: The more estranged your work is, the more likely it is getting automated with AI. Apart from the folly of optimising what should not exist at all, in a slightly more ideal world that would be quite a good thing.
✨Sascha Brossmann commented on a post
7h
Ich fand in der Hinsicht auch Antoinette Weibel s kürzlichen Beitrag zur historischen Herleitung des Leistungsbegriffs sehr erhellend. TL;DR: Leistung ist die Folgeerscheinung eines Messvorgangs. Hängt also an der Auswahl der gemessenen Kriterien. Vorher (geschichtlich) existiert das Konzept schlichtweg nicht – noch iin der frühen Neuzeit würde der gesamte Diskurs zum Thema eher irritierte Verwunderung auslösen (dafür gab‘s z. B. in den Zünften das Konzeot der Ehrbarkeit). Insofern ist die Verwendung von «Leistungsträger:in» für Gutverdiener:innen durchaus legitim. Offenbart halt eine gewisse geistige Eindimensionalität und Mangel an Vorstellungskraft bei den Verwender:innen. ;)
✨Sascha Brossmann replied to a comment
7h
Mike Burrows Immunisation against. criticism, anyone? ;) Essentially it has become a cult.
✨Sascha Brossmann replied to a comment
1d
Tatiana Muñoz Nach Jahren der amtsseitigen Kommunikation im Kasernenhofton fällt die Wertschätzung irgendwann leider schwer. (Persönlich vor Ort geht‘s dagegen – zwischen schriftlich und mündlich liegen im FA Welten)
-
✨Sascha Brossmann liked thisPerfectly describes the nausea I feel when I hear people espouse "teal". So much high value research and science devolves in this manner...✨Sascha Brossmann liked thisAnd to close off this roasting series, here we are with Spiral Dynamics. Several years back, I sat in meetings where people were colour shamed for being red or blue and rewarded for reaching green or yellow. There was a colour wheel on the table. Every hiring decision for managers ran through it. The framework was directly plugged into the "people values". You know where this is going right? Clare Graves was a professor of psychology at Union College in New York who spent thirty years on a meticulous, inductive study of how human value systems develop. He was cautious, thorough, and reportedly distressed by how quickly serious psychological work got stripped of its nuance. He suffered a brain injury in 1975, abandoned his manuscript, and died in 1986 having never published his complete theory. He never used colours. Don Beck encountered Graves's work in 1974 and spent years applying it, most notably making over sixty trips to South Africa during the transition from apartheid. The colours were Beck's deliberate invention, chosen specifically to replace racial categories with value systems, to get away from judging people by characteristics they were born with. He wanted leaders to see patterns of thinking rather than skin. That was the point. The colours were designed to dissolve ranking by birth, not enable it. Beck and his collaborator Christopher Cowan published Spiral Dynamics in 1996. By 1999 they had split acrimoniously over the model's direction. Ken Wilber absorbed it into his integral theory, adding spiritual dimensions Graves never intended. Multiple competing trademarked versions now exist. The model that started as rigorous empirical research had become a franchise with factions. What arrived in organisations was a hierarchy dressed in rainbow clothing. The colours invented to escape racial profiling became a new kind of profiling. Red and blue were primitive. Yellow and turquoise were enlightened. Organisations used it to sort people, judge people, and signal which employees were sufficiently evolved for leadership. A tool designed to see value systems became a tool to rank human worth. Graves was explicit that the levels were not a ladder of better and worse people. They were descriptions of value systems responding to life conditions — fluid, contextual, reversible. A person was not their colour. And yet the colour ended up on the wall as a marker for worth. What Graves actually offers, if you go back to the source, is a reminder that people's value systems are responses to conditions, not fixed expressions of who they are. Change the conditions and you change what becomes possible. Which is, as it happens, the same thing every entry in this series has been pointing toward. The person in front of you is not their colour. They are not their type, their stage, or their score. They are a human being responding to the conditions they are living inside. Start there.
-
✨Sascha Brossmann reacted on this✨Sascha Brossmann reacted on thisAnd to close off this roasting series, here we are with Spiral Dynamics. Several years back, I sat in meetings where people were colour shamed for being red or blue and rewarded for reaching green or yellow. There was a colour wheel on the table. Every hiring decision for managers ran through it. The framework was directly plugged into the "people values". You know where this is going right? Clare Graves was a professor of psychology at Union College in New York who spent thirty years on a meticulous, inductive study of how human value systems develop. He was cautious, thorough, and reportedly distressed by how quickly serious psychological work got stripped of its nuance. He suffered a brain injury in 1975, abandoned his manuscript, and died in 1986 having never published his complete theory. He never used colours. Don Beck encountered Graves's work in 1974 and spent years applying it, most notably making over sixty trips to South Africa during the transition from apartheid. The colours were Beck's deliberate invention, chosen specifically to replace racial categories with value systems, to get away from judging people by characteristics they were born with. He wanted leaders to see patterns of thinking rather than skin. That was the point. The colours were designed to dissolve ranking by birth, not enable it. Beck and his collaborator Christopher Cowan published Spiral Dynamics in 1996. By 1999 they had split acrimoniously over the model's direction. Ken Wilber absorbed it into his integral theory, adding spiritual dimensions Graves never intended. Multiple competing trademarked versions now exist. The model that started as rigorous empirical research had become a franchise with factions. What arrived in organisations was a hierarchy dressed in rainbow clothing. The colours invented to escape racial profiling became a new kind of profiling. Red and blue were primitive. Yellow and turquoise were enlightened. Organisations used it to sort people, judge people, and signal which employees were sufficiently evolved for leadership. A tool designed to see value systems became a tool to rank human worth. Graves was explicit that the levels were not a ladder of better and worse people. They were descriptions of value systems responding to life conditions — fluid, contextual, reversible. A person was not their colour. And yet the colour ended up on the wall as a marker for worth. What Graves actually offers, if you go back to the source, is a reminder that people's value systems are responses to conditions, not fixed expressions of who they are. Change the conditions and you change what becomes possible. Which is, as it happens, the same thing every entry in this series has been pointing toward. The person in front of you is not their colour. They are not their type, their stage, or their score. They are a human being responding to the conditions they are living inside. Start there.
-
✨Sascha Brossmann liked this✨Sascha Brossmann liked thisI found myself pondering this morning: "I wonder if the people who have the most success leveraging AI in their work are the same people who are the most collaborative on teams?" When I ask the LLM how we can do things better, or to point out gaps I may have missed or options I hadn't considered, I get better results. When I tell it, "do it my way!!" I get more rework. I see this mirrored in my experience leading teams or listening to how others lead teams. Tech leads who dictate tasks are far less effective than those who are trying to grow more tech leads by serving the team and encouraging collaborative solutions.
Experience & Education
-
Fiat Flux
View ✨Sascha’s full experience
See their title, tenure and more.
or
Volunteer Experience
Projects
-
shoutr labs
-
Role: design partner and advisor.
shoutr labs offer a unique award-winning location-based information system that enables their customers to deliver high-bandwidth content to mobile devices with high scalability and without depending on any kind of internet connection as bottleneck.
Selected achievements:
- Acquired project funding via Berlin’s _Designtransferbonus_ programme for SMEs (maximum possible amount granted).
- Facilitated design thinking workshops that…Role: design partner and advisor.
shoutr labs offer a unique award-winning location-based information system that enables their customers to deliver high-bandwidth content to mobile devices with high scalability and without depending on any kind of internet connection as bottleneck.
Selected achievements:
- Acquired project funding via Berlin’s _Designtransferbonus_ programme for SMEs (maximum possible amount granted).
- Facilitated design thinking workshops that helped the client to clarify their business model and strategic perspectives.
- Introduced methods and frameworks like _Jobs-to-be-done_ that enabled the client's team to shift their perspective from technical/product-centric to customer-centric.
- Introduced basics of content strategy for the client's website team.
- Improved customer satisfaction by raising quality of content presentation from DIY to online magazine level. Designed parametric type and layout framework for quick adaption to new customers. Introduced contemporary frontend technologies to build it.
- Led customer-facing workshops and interviews to discover needs and inform product management and design.
- Piggybacked qualitative design research as often as possible when and whereever the client’s team interacted with their customers to compensate for startup-typical resource and time restrictions
- Lead UX and UI design for relaunch of the client's cloud-based CMS. Applied principles of component based modular design to create a content-centric system toolbox with context-based interactions instead of a monolithic design with fixed workflows as before. Thus enabling the client to more easily adapt the CMS to new user insights, feedback, and needs as they arise in the future.
- Created universal design principles and guidelines to improve critique/decision-making within the product team and (perspectively) help unify the user/customer experience across all products and touch-points for building a coherent brand.Other creators -
-
Online self-assessment for university applicants (pilot concept for FU Berlin)
-
See projectConcept and design prototype for pilot project in cooperation with the central course guidance centre and the _Institut für Politik- und Kommunikationswissenschaften_, FU Berlin.
Highlights:
* Instead of resorting to the usual questionable questionnaires, tiresome multiple-choice tests and letting incredibly dumb algorithms generate recommendations with high error margins we opted for a storytelling-inspired solution that aimed at improving the self-judgement of applicants by…Concept and design prototype for pilot project in cooperation with the central course guidance centre and the _Institut für Politik- und Kommunikationswissenschaften_, FU Berlin.
Highlights:
* Instead of resorting to the usual questionable questionnaires, tiresome multiple-choice tests and letting incredibly dumb algorithms generate recommendations with high error margins we opted for a storytelling-inspired solution that aimed at improving the self-judgement of applicants by clarifying their expectations about the desired course of study.
* Convinced formerly reluctant/opposing stakeholders to change their position and support/sponsor the project: “Frankly speaking, I admit not having been a big fan of this project in the beginning but your presentation now convinced me of the opposite.” (professor in steering committee)
* The pilot concept faced initial pushbacks due to colliding internal agendas but was finally rolled out for many courses of study at FU Berlin. It is still used today: http://www.osa.fu-berlin.de/
Languages
-
English
Full professional proficiency
-
German
Native or bilingual proficiency
-
Spanish
Limited working proficiency
-
French
Limited working proficiency
Organizations
-
MentorMe
Mentor
- Present -
IxDA
-
- Present
Other similar profiles
Explore top content on LinkedIn
Find curated posts and insights for relevant topics all in one place.
View top content