Virtual Virtuoso: Better Working Online

Dirk Dobiéy Business, News Leave a Comment

Virtual collaboration

Inform, learn, exchange ideas with others – we are increasingly shifting our communications and collaboration increasingly into the virtual world. This development started decades ago and now increasingly includes creating together. It is driven by globalization, technological progress (digitization) and the demand for efficiency. The impending climate catastrophe and the spread of the coronavirus (Covid-19) both show us that it can be reasonable and extremely necessary to virtualize collaboration with others.

„The next few months are set to be a giant experiment in whether new technologies can allow successful mass remote working for employees, speeding up the reinvention of the office. And for firms already worried about rickety supply chains amid a trade war, the virus gives another reason to reconfigure them.“

The Economist (05.03.2020)

Virtuoso collaboration

Our attempts to collaborate virtually with others are mostly limited. We focus on technical feasibility and lose sight of crucial aspects of working with others – in the truest sense. For this reason, virtual collaboration lags far behind what we know and appreciate from dealing directly with people. For some it is proven that virtual collaboration does not work, and they reject such solutions, while others celebrate technological progress and downplay the obvious weaknesses. Both sides are right and wrong. The absolute openness to technology, if it tends to ignore psychological and social aspects, should be criticized just as much as the resistance and ignorance with which one can lightly dismiss its actual potential. At the same time, even the providers of digital solutions are not clear how they can successfully virtualize analogue experiences.

„How exactly each big tech company will pivot its conference to a virtual one remains to be seen. Summer developer conferences are a place for big keynotes and announcements, but they’re also essential for developers who get a chance to mingle with engineers who work on big platforms and with each other.“

The Verge (12.03.2020)

The biggest challenge is to transfer the positive experiences of the real world into the virtual space. Where this is not possible, we must find an adequate substitute or, through a combination of the analog and digital worlds, find compromises that result in virtuosity for dealing with the options available to us. Particularly, in addition to the reasonable focus on rational content, we must invest significantly more energy to strengthen the social and emotional aspects of collaboration.

But what can this exactly look like and what other possibilities does the virtual world offer us? And what does all this mean for us?

In the past few days, we have thought about these questions based on our experience even more intensively than before. First of all, it became a series of findings, then a presentation and finally a toolbox that everyone can use. Please visit one of our free webinars and download our presentation on the subject.

Registration for our Webinar

We are available for requests and feedback:


Photo by Alex Kotliarskyi on Unsplash

Charles Caleb Ward: His First Appearance in Public

The Abolition of Creativity: An Essay on Artificial and Artistic Intelligence (5/5)

Benjamin Stromberg Insights, Publication 1 Comment

By Thomas Köplin and Dirk Dobiéy

The last part of our five-part series. Read the first part here, the second part here, the third part here, and the fourth part here.

Part 5: Ratio and resilience

A unique feature of artificial intelligence is that it knows no feeling. It works logically, although its logic is not always understandable for us humans. The reason may be that with us humans the feeling still comes first (even if we all feel it differently), followed by the slower mind, which arranges only in retrospect, judges, and legitimates. In some way, the mind organizes and clears after the feelings. From this perspective, it becomes clear in which way humans and machines are ahead of each other and in which way we can complement each other. Nowadays, sometimes things that you don’t have or of which you have too little, are more desirous and valued than those that you already have. This desire, in turn, is expressed in our longing for a rational approach, predictability, and calculability, which we want to implement with the help of intelligent machines. They make us what Mr. Spock sought in vain to hide: half Vulcan, half human. He embodies the symbiosis that some of us have in mind when thinking of the future human.

However, our pursuit of predictability leads quite casually to a devaluation of human perception, one’s senses, feelings, and subconscious. At the same time, there is a growing danger that the imagination, which relies above all on experience, will increasingly be disempowered, writes the author Manfred Osten and continues: “The consequence is that humans become less and less aware of the fatality of possible errors and mistakes in the implementation of planning theories into real actions. (…) with the rapid increase of knowledge without experience against the horizon of virtual worlds, man runs the risk of being increasingly overstrained by handling mistakes.”[1] Ultimately, this means we are reducing our resilience rather than increasing it.

Artists are skilled in dealing with ambiguity and unpredictable events

In this context we can learn again from the artistic approach. After all, artists are well trained to consider feelings and subconsciousness in their work, to deal with ambiguity and unforeseeable events. They almost force their emergence, because they are the ones that make new things possible. Artists have developed an understanding that the considered downsides are essential if they want to be creative. They know the benefits of constant struggle for their work, of their beloved enmities, which connect them with criticism and dissent, mistakes and failures, doubts and crises. Any conflict with them strengthens their resilience. In this context, one can also present the performance, which for the artist is more of a question than an answer, which is to be understood as a perpetual nearness, as a letting go and not as a perfect final state, through which every artistic activity receives a tangible external reference.

Learning environment for profound experiences

In order for people in organizations to have a functional learning environment to build comparable resilience, they need to enable their employees to experience something similar and to feel more profound. Keeping them away from it makes little sense in the long run. Gerd Gigerenzer, a psychologist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, sees this from a similar perspective: “In our society, we neglect the intuitive component, because, since the Enlightenment, we give priority to rationality rather than to intuition, and then we think that the actual inspirations and innovation come from reflection. But that is not always the case. We should not underestimate the source and importance of intuition here. (…) My point is to place head and gut on one level, thus, to show that decisions based on intuition instead of complex analysis are not always second-rate, but can often be better, too. “

If an organization wants to be agile, people must be able to be elastic and be deeply moved.

So it’s not about making organizations more resilient by trying to predict the future, to make the unpredictable plannable and avert looming vulnerability (which is usually attempted with the help of rules, instructions, or standards). It’s about empowering employees to develop individual resilience by making immediate experiences and contributing entirely as a person, including their intuition and sense. If an organization wants to be agile, people must be able to be elastic and be deeply moved.


[1] Osten, Manfred (2006). Die Kunst Fehler zu machen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

[2] Gigerenzer, Gerd. (15.1.2010) Sind Erfindungen auch Resultate genialer Eingebungen? Available online at Last checked on 11.10.2017.


This essay is based on our research over the past four years. What makes our findings true-to-life and applicable is that we have conducted more than 100 interviews with artists of all genres to date, but also with scientists of various disciplines and with numerous business representatives. We report on this in detail in our book “Creative Company” (


Image source: National Gallery of Art; Charles Caleb Ward; His First Appearance in Public FacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Music without a person: Virtuoso without having to practice?

The Abolition of Creativity: An Essay on Artificial and Artistic Intelligence (4/5)

Benjamin Stromberg Insights, Publication Leave a Comment

By Thomas Köplin and Dirk Dobiéy

The fourth part of our five-part series. Read the first part here, the second part here, and the third part here.

Part 4: Automation, Routine, and Play

Machines reduce our workload thanks to automation. They take on dangerous tasks, tasks that require precision, or tasks that bore us. The increasing efficiency or (if you will) intelligence of the systems makes it possible also to automate knowledge-intensive or complicated activities. Even though our perception of the associated benefits quickly wears off and everyone indeed develops their perspective on these benefits. No doubt, automating routine operations gives us new freedom that we can, at best, fill out with more meaningful activities.

The automation of routine activities gives us new freedom.

Moreover, of course, automation also takes some of our responsibility: the first thought of most people will be about potential job losses, perhaps followed by questions of ethics and security. However, hidden from it, almost unnoticed by the public discourse, there is another question that is central to our self-image and our future: What does it do with our creativity when we leave our routines to machines? What will eventually become of practicing, repeating the same actions that are necessary to attain the maturity that will make it possible to rise above it and outgrow it?

Without the foundation of routine, something new cannot be imagined.

The cultural scientist Andreas Reckwitz considers routine as an essential ingredient for the emergence of creativity. Innovation without routine is unimaginable to him. “To a considerable extent, writing a novel or painting a picture is a routinised technique. It also requires specific skills that need to be acquired and trained in an extended process. (…) It is not about a routine that relies on mindless repetition, but on complex skills.”[1] Although he seeks his examples in art, it does not matter to which area you move. Be it a violinist, software developer or chef – without the foundation of routine, something new is unimaginable.

Routine closely links to our penchant for playfulness, which trains our flexibility in thinking and flexibility in action. Bernd Rosslenbroich, head of the Institute for Evolutionary Biology at Witten / Herdecke University, is convinced that the tremendous evolutionary changes were not just adaptations to environmental conditions, but an interplay and exchange of organism and environment. For him it is consistent and natural that more highly developed organisms start to play: “Evolutionary research that focuses on adaptation can hardly explain this situation because playing has no adaptive value. At this point, you can consider the playing of humans and realize that humans engage excessively in play. Children play very extensively. If you build on this thought, you can recognize a certain creativity. Flexible actions are practiced although no particular behaviour; however, a variety of behavioral possibilities are practiced. Flexibility itself is learned, and that’s creativity. This particularly characterizes mankind. We have degrees of freedom that we train by playing. “[2]

Flexibility is creativity.

The many varieties of the play – experimenting, designing, rehearsing, composing, combining, improvising and a few more – found in the artistic, but of course also elsewhere, indicate that playing is an important thing for us humans. Moreover, rightly so: if you understand routine as a source of our ability, the key to creativity lies in playfulness, and the combination of both gives you the chance to bring about innovation. On the other hand, putting too many of our routines in the hands of machines automatically reduces our incentives to develop playfully. However, with that, we are removing the basis for a design competence and innovative ability that is repeatedly demanded from us by many sides.


Click here for the last part of our series > Ratio and resilience

In the fifth part of our series, we think about how digital intelligence could devalue our intuition and reduce our resilience, by overemphasizing rational decision-making.


This essay is based on our research over the past four years. What makes our findings true-to-life and applicable is that we have conducted more than 100 interviews with artists of all genres to date, but also with scientists of various disciplines and with numerous business representatives. We report on this in detail in our book “Creative Company” (


[1] Age of Artists. Interview with Andreas Reckwitz. 11/06/2015. 

[2] Age of Artists. Interview with Bernd Rosslenbroich. 14/10/2015.

Image source: Franck V on UnsplashFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Buddha-Shakyamuni seated in Meditation (Dhyanamudra)

The Abolition of Creativity: An Essay on Artificial and Artistic Intelligence (3/5)

Benjamin Stromberg Insights, Publication Leave a Comment

By Dirk Dobiey and Thomas Köplin

The third part of our five-part series. Read the first part here and the second part here.

Part 3: Decision and Self-Awareness

One of the benefits of artificial intelligence is that it helps us take decisions today (or more so in the future) or releases us from them altogether. This sounds sensible and tempting in the face of a real or perceived increasing variety of possibilities. How welcome would a simple app be that would take us by the hand when confronted with the supermarket’s refrigerated section in search of healthy dairy products for the children? Good, better, yogurt! However, developments in artificial intelligence tend to deprive us of decisions of greater importance. Which TV do we buy, where do we invest, how do we treat diseases?

Increasing the power of artificial intelligence brings many benefits. It decides faster and often better than us humans. However, it also carries the risk that we are less concerned with essential issues, that we do a less in-depth analysis, that we stop thinking carefully and strive less for answers that are compelling enough to become a good, binding and compulsory decision. Thus, we lose sovereignty in dealing with things, deprive ourselves of the ability to gain self-awareness and meaning in our actions and experiences. At this point, even a well-intentioned “Search Inside Yourself” seminar cannot help anymore. Today, many different disciplines agree in the endeavor to recreate a feeling of balance, safety and meaning in our actions and our view of the world. Mindfulness, for example, is nowadays a desirable thing in our organisations. However, it is only conceived as a simple concept, which can, at best mask what is missing in a broader context.

In artistic terms, we can see a path to more meaningfulness which has always been naturally equipped in each of us and therefore is open to each of us: artistically acting people bring everything into their work at all times: their knowledge and ability, their creative potential and above all their passion. A passion which they achieve – and this may surprise – through reflection. For the artist, the reflection means to analyse and to abstract, to free yourself from what has been, to distance yourself from what is generally accepted, to change your perspective, to generate ideas and to develop ideas in the exchange with others by constantly questioning, never being too sure. Everything aims to focus, to gain a better understanding, to commit yourself to such a thing that decisions are not only possible but compelling.

Such an understood and practiced reflection is not limited to the formation of judgment and decision-making about a single work but is also the starting point for the mediation between work and Œuvre, value and effect, meaning and objectivity, position and transcendence, work and life. Thus, reflection is the place where both the meaningfulness, so the relation of the work to the world, as well as the self-awareness, so the personal relationship to the world, are negotiated. It is easy to see that it can be risky for the individual, for the organisation, and for a whole society to leave these negotiations to algorithms. We need to know how to assess the ethical concerns of artificial intelligence in order to be at eye level in dealing with it. It is essential to be able to distinguish where and in what form artificial intelligence can be useful and when it limits our chances of self-awareness.


To the next part > Automation, Routine, and Play

In the fourth part of our series, we’ll talk about how automation releases us from chores, but at the same time impairs our creativity by eliminating essential routines.


This essay is based on our research over the past four years. What makes our findings true-to-life and applicable is that we have conducted more than 100 interviews with artists of all genres to date, but also with scientists of various disciplines and with numerous business representatives. We report on this in detail in our book “Creative Company” (


Image Source: Art Institute Chicago


Curiosity Rover: the artistic concept of NASA Science Laboratory for Mars

The Abolition of Creativity: An Essay on Artificial and Artistic Intelligence (2/5)

Benjamin Stromberg Insights, Publication Leave a Comment

By Dirk Dobiey and Thomas Köplin

The second part of our five-part series. Read the first part here.

Part 2: Efficiency and Variety

Technological progress is often equated with efficiency gains. For example, machines, especially those that get ascribed more and more certain intelligence, can often do things many times more efficiently than humans can. They relieve us of tasks and decisions and thus also reduce the wealth of personal experiences quite casually. In the world of work, this is reflected in a specialization that makes it difficult for us to connect with other areas or to recognize connections. In social media, we talk about echo chambers, which reinforce our point of view and keep irritations away from us. A greater or lesser extent of our experience is curated by algorithms in the manner of a Discover Weekly, as we know it from Spotify, for example. The pursuit of efficiency is deeply rooted in us and easy to understand. Why take detours? Why slow down? Why produce more expensive?

If it takes over it eliminates the extravagant in our thinking and the diversity in our experiences. This loss not only weakens our intuition, which is based on such a diversity and represents an essential basis of our creativity. It also reduces our chance for coincidences and dwarfs our perceptive abilities. We sense that we are restricted by our excessive pursuit of efficiency without being able to oppose this pursuit seriously. Symptomatic for this helplessness is the susceptibility to tips that propagate the deviation from the rule such as: Take a different route to work every day, choose something random from the menu, ask five times in meetings Why – all just a shadow of artistic curiosity and human joy of exploration, which want to fathom things in their depths and still have enough capacity to pick up the essential from the roadside.

In art, curiosity is not restricted but promoted. The artistic attitude is characterized by a curiosity that is not always efficient, but also extravagant. It leaves room for coincidences, which do not provide quick answers but in which one question leads to the next and thus helps to clarify things bit by bit. It is never aimless and yet always dissipated. Even if you pursue a specific topic, everything else is potentially interesting, also if it is only remotely or not at all related. In short, artistic curiosity describes the fundamental willingness to perceive, receive and learn without prejudice. The result of such a pursuit is variety – a variety of questions and answers; a variety of impressions, experiences, and insights; a variety of possibilities – and ultimately a variety of relationships if you understand curiosity as what artist and author Johannes Stüttgen sees in it (as he told us): “My mode of operation is especially characterized by curiosity, because I long to find out what another person actually wants and how this compares to my experiences. Essentially, it is a fabrication of relationships.” Especially in the interplay of humans and machines, it will become even more important promoting such a variety and such a fabrication of relationships. Organisations that want to shape a benefit out of this interaction must make greater use of their gain in efficiency to invest in the perceptions of their employees and the organisational sensorium.


To the next part > Decision and Self-Knowledge

In the next part of our series, we explore the question of why it is helpful and problematic when machines take our decisions from us.


About this Text:

This essay is based on our research over the past four years. What makes our findings true-to-life and applicable is that we have conducted more than 100 interviews with artists of all genres to date, but also with scientists of various disciplines and with numerous business representatives. We report on this in detail in our book “Creative Company” (

Image Source: NASA/JPL-CaltechFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Hendrik Goltzius, after Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem Icarus
Hendrik Goltzius, after Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem - Icarus

The Abolition of Creativity: An Essay on Artificial and Artistic Intelligence (1/5)

Benjamin Stromberg Insights, Publication Leave a Comment

By Dirk Dobiey and Thomas Köplin

Part 1: What makes us irreplaceable

The highest hopes for economic growth are linked to technological progress. Technological progress unveils fascinating possibilities. At the same time the upheavals associated with it are partly also highly problematic and their consequences mostly unpredictable. Most far-reaching, or at least most apparent, are the advances we have made in the field of digitisation and so-called Artificial Intelligence. Intelligent machines, connected to us and with each other, will help us to gain new free spaces. They help with decision-making, increase productivity, take away work, make room for new tasks, make life more comfortable, and perhaps also make us better people.

However, their use will also make entire occupations disappear and rob people of their livelihood. The question of what makes people irreplaceable comes to the fore. The question becomes even compelling if you work on helping machines achieve a kind of perception, learning, and action that equals or surpasses that of a human being. Meanwhile, many researchers, including the late Stephen Hawking, point out that the creation of artificial intelligence could easily become our last invention. Everything works towards understanding, copying, and changing the perceptible nature. We try to redesign and surpass our world and ourselves according to their example and far beyond.

Nevertheless, Bill Briggs, Chief Technology Officer at Deloitte, believes that we will continue to be superior to machines in everything that requires creativity and human interaction. For him, there are two things technology cannot replace: firstly, the preservation of humanity. Secondly, the work on wicked problems which are complex problems, that cannot be precisely defined, that have more than one possible solution and where, nevertheless, every decision and every action has noticeable effects. [1] The search for life on Mars is such a wicked problem. Global challenges such as climate change or migration are wicked problems or consist of even more such problems. Moreover, our organisations are also facing complex problems triggered by competitive pressure and progress in a globally connected, digital world. When simple, linear problems are increasingly automated, people should be able to focus more on solving social issues and complex tasks. However, we need to train more skills that have played less of a role so far. They include the ability to perceive, reflect, design, deal with uncertainty and ambiguity – all abilities that are at home in the artistic field.

Eric Schmidt – and that he already said it 15 years ago is remarkable – says, “You need to let the artists explore and create the next great thing, which they will do reliably if you permit it. “[2] But even as such demands are getting more prominent these days, we find that technological progress is usually unintentional but increasingly vehement in suppressing creativity.


To the next part > Efficiency and Variety

In the next part of our series “Efficiency and Variety”, we explore the question of how to escape the ground for creativity through our drive for efficiency.


About this Text:

This essay is based on our research over the past four years. What makes our findings true-to-life and applicable is that we have conducted more than 100 interviews with artists of all genres to date, but also with scientists of various disciplines and with numerous business representatives.

We report on this in detail in our book “Creative Company” (



[1]Briggs, Bill; Exponentials: Tech Trends 2014, online available under, last checked on Oktober 8. 2018.

[2]Schmidt, Eric (2003). Foreword. In: Robert Daniel D. Austin, & Lee Devin. Artful making: What managers need to know about how artists work. FT Press.

Image source:

Wolfgang Ullrich

“I admire the courage to make decisions where the consequences are not foreseeable”: Interview with the art historian and author Wolfgang Ullrich

Benjamin Stromberg Insights, Interview Leave a Comment

In his life, Wolfgang Ullrich has worked intensively on art and its significance for our society and is able to combine his expertise with compelling analyses of contemporary social phenomena. You could just see a critic in him, but master of reflection is more likely to fit – a quality that he also appreciates with his fellow men. 

We talked to him about our present society and how fruitful it is to think business and art together. “Generally, it seems to me that our society is perhaps the most differentiated and ambitious society so far. In many areas, we have experienced democratization, with many people also having the economic basis to reflect on issues. At other times it was not that easy. I keep observing in conversations with others, I quickly find a field in which they are versed quite well. It is not only about factual knowledge, but also about reflection, experience and sensitivity. Thus, quite a few things have happened in the last few decades, but perhaps this development is still under-appreciated”, he explains.

At the same time Ullrich sees a certain degree of arrogance of some people, which can arise from the possibility to design your own life individually and meaningfully. “Today you can express things that were not possible in the past, because it was largely determined what was considered as real and good life. Therefore, it is also fantastic that you can live in a highly individualized society. For me it becomes problematic at the point where people think that they can judge about others who have less opportunities to have a meaningful life. This happens because values ​​are often equated with morality and virtue. Then you believe quickly you are already a particularly moral or virtuous person just because you live by values. But you only were lucky, that you have talents as well as money and the time to make your own life meaningful.” A certain humility as a basic condition in the pursuit of your own happiness is something that can be observed in many artists. They know they have to pursue what is necessary with determination, courage and perseverance and have a personal position. But they also know that they have to overcome their own ego to create something new. Having your own values while at the same time being able to transcend them may seem contradictory. And it is. At best, however, it leads to subordinate your ego to a higher purpose, such as a piece of work, instead of making the individual way of life a common virtue.

Generally, Ullrich believes it is an excellent idea to enable such meaningfulness also through the companies in which we work. He supports the idea that artistic patterns of action could play a key role here: “As far as I have gained experience with entrepreneurs, I would say that I admire the courage to make decisions where the consequences are not clear. For example, you would not only get yourself into a tricky situation, but maybe even dismiss employees. The characteristics or inclinations of artists that you mentioned and have found (note: perceiving, reflecting, creating playfully and performing), are certainly also very useful for entrepreneurs or other people who want to succeed. “

Ullrich also emphasizes that the link between business and the arts should be reflected. Of course, there are still differences that should not be ignored, he states: “All that is looked for is similarities, which, for example, designate the entrepreneur as a conductor. It would also be effective to highlight differences. One should therefore ask the question, what it means that the entrepreneur is responsible for so many employees and most artists are usually not. Take, for example, the famous speech by Jürgen Ponto from the early 1970s in which he extensively and unilaterally invoked the analogies between artists and managers. I don’t mean that what he said is wrong, but you cannot say that they are so similar, and that every entrepreneur is also an artist and that every artist is an entrepreneur. There are still differences that we shouldn’t blur. “

In addition, entrepreneurs and artists differ mainly in terms of the audience and the product that they offer: “The dependencies are generally greater for an entrepreneur. But you don’t have to describe that negatively. If an entrepreneur has a social sense, he certainly uses it to the benefit of the customers. But for me, an entrepreneur needs this skill, but an artist does not. Of course, both “products” testify to this difference, and I also think it’s important that there are both kind of products in the world. There must be products that are precisely tailored to the needs of the customer, but there must also be products that are created according to the requirements of the producer. You need both, and most of all you need things that you might not understand or dislike at first. Only then do you deal with it. I would like to uphold this difference. “

Ultimately, for Ullrich the creativity and the serious interest are crucial with which entrepreneurs as well as artists can meet their audience. “Through his creative style, an entrepreneur can also establish a relationship with the customer. Nevertheless, you can also manipulate the customer a little in his wishes. Just last week I had a conversation with a very successful media entrepreneur. He told me that he went to every toilet on highways to listen what people are talking about. That is another reason why he has become successful. His belief is that you always need to listen to people and go wherever you find out about their worries and desires. “

Read the full interview here (German Only).

Interview by Dirk Dobiéy
Blog by Benjamin Stromberg
Translation by Benjamin Stromberg
Picture: Wolfgang Ullrich and Open SourceFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Timo Meynhardt

The freedom to reach for the stars: Interview with Timo Meynhardt about the common good in economy and society

Benjamin Stromberg Insights Leave a Comment

When talking about the common good, few people associate it with its economic relevance. Not so the German psychologist and business economist Timo Meynhardt. After finishing his academic studies and working for several years in consulting, he is currently conducting research with a focus on the common good and its importance to our understanding of business. He is doing this work in his role as Managing Director of the Center for Leadership and Values ​​in Society at the University of St. Gallen. Additionally, since October 2015, Timo Meynhardt is the Arend Oetker Chair in Business Psychology and Leadership at the HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management. Yet the ideological narrowness “in which a small group links particular interests to the common good and thus make it appear as if it were the common good”, is alien to Meynhardt. For Meynhardt “the common good is what the individual or the group needs as a breeding ground to develop, the same way that a plant that is not in a fertile soil, will not thrive. And as a social being the human needs a conducive social context to develop. This can be called common good”, explains Meynhardt. Moreover, he distinguishes between two central dimensions of the common good: “Without the common good there is no freedom. In my view the question of common good and the liberal question cannot be separated: Who wants freedom must say common good. The common good as a condition for the possibility of successful life is thus the psychological-functional facet. Another facet is the history of ideas. Common good here is a regulative idea in the meaning of the philosopher Immanuel Kant. We cannot achieve this, but it acts like a polar star, which helps us to reflect our actions and to orient ourselves.”

Both facets of the common good underline its essential importance for the organisation of our society, our organisations, and even our lives. Meynhardt explains, “currently the idea of common good is becoming popular again because its connotation is new, different, and fresh. And I don’t think that’s because of ethics. Instead, I believe that the increasing complexity of the modern world is forcing us to find a stable polar star. When everything changes, we look for something that is stable and that is the orientation towards the common good. One could also state that if complexity is the challenge, the common good is the answer.”

For companies, that means they should add a superordinate value to the monetary added value. Frequently, people talk about purpose here. “Making money remains important, but the dimension of meaning comes along in a powerful way. We think that the common good represents an attractive connotation of meaning”, Meynhardt summarises. “In companies that we visit they see the dangers, but also the opportunities of the focus on common good. Today, we can show that as soon as a CEO begins to focus on the common good, it has immediate motivational effects on employees – always when it is meant to be honest. Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Fink talk about purpose, it is not always credible, yet we are increasingly seeing how capitalism activates its own legitimizing resources and perhaps uses them to make something of it entrepreneurially. “

Ultimately, Meynhardt’s understanding of the common good is less about a moral norm, but more about contemporary action to ensure sustainability. To be able to survive economically in a complex world, for him common good is not a nice-to-have but a basic condition. Companies would now increasingly recognise this: “Companies are implementing this because the complexity and pace of change calls for a guiding star, a superordinate idea. To organise their business model, managers argue less morally but more functionally.” When asked whether the common good will ultimately decide on the chances of survival of companies, he concludes: “Absolutely. That’s the reason for being, the license to operate. Profit is a means to an end, whereas the purpose is different and must be something else. “

In order to strike such a new path, “each individual contributes with his or her individuality, but there is also something that characterises these relationships beyond which I call a quality of system. This system quality is the common good. In the meantime, we can also show by studies that experiencing the common good gives strength and confidence to the individual, “explains Meynhardt. “In doing so, the mindset is crucial. You have to develop such a mindset for yourself. This is also about thinking about things together rather than separately. A systemic way of thinking is very important, but not the only criterion. It is also important to recognise contradictions as contradictions.” This makes it clear that business and the common good are not contradictions but describe the creative space that enables executives to secure the sustainability of their organizations.

Read the full interview here (German Only).

Interview by Dirk Dobiéy & Rodrigo Morales
Blog by Benjamin Stromberg & Dirk Dobiéy
Translation by Benjamin Stromberg
Picture and Video Source: Timo Meynhardt and Open SourceFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Martin Kohlstedt

Contradiction as a Drive – Interview with Pianist Martin Kohlstedt

Dirk Dobiéy Insights Leave a Comment

The pianist Martin Kohlstedt is artist and entrepreneur, musician, and at the same time boss of his own record label employing more than ten people. This was not anticipated, because he only started playing the piano at the age of twelve, however,  the native Thuringian has published three solo albums and performs at international festivals. In our conversation, he tells us how he balances the contradictory purposes of artistic freedom, musical-industrial necessity, and business administration concerns into a harmonious overall context.

The Artist

On stage Martin Kohlstedt experiments and lets his pieces react with one another. He dissolves them and creates something new every time. “My music is based on a very intuitive approach. In the beginning, it is more or less a game of boredom until it becomes a piece that flows on its own”. Hearing this statement, it is not difficult to imagine the twelve-year-old Martin playing for the first time on a detuned piano in his parents’ living room. Today, for Martin Kohlstedt, the concert and the discourse with the audience is the catalyst for creating something new. “I cannot sit down at home and pretend to do something new and make something out of it. Instead, I take it into the context of the audience in which this energy is also noticeable. There I can find a counterpart and resonance body. At home, doubt is too strong. The audience gives you a very high security. I also notice if a piece is working or not. The concert is the main essence of my work. Live I rather discuss the music. The moment an audience is there, I look at my own pieces from above and feed them electronically, making them bigger, smaller, break them, maybe I just reinforce them. It’s a completely different perspective. My live concert is a long way from the album. And so, I constantly develop my music on stage and keep it under negotiation, until I work out new things again which I then record on an album. The process takes place in reverse. That’s what sets me apart from many other artists. It’s not like I’m making an album, go on tour with this album, and then make new sketches for a year. What I do live is the actual process. The discourse is there, chaos is there.” For Martin Kohlstedt, this chaos is always a search for the creative potential of his own subconscious. “The subconscious has the potential to create a vocabulary,” he says. “It feels like a higher authority than your own human decision-making ability, to squeeze things into formats, lengths, or sets. One begins to adapt the music for the format. It’s also a creative process, of course, but the real artistic thing is this drilling and translating the deepest fears. Therein I see the greatest artistic potential. You become energetic, your hands get sweaty and you have the feeling that you should not continue. You are with yourself in a world that sometimes is not soothing. “And yet the artist sees no other way for himself. “The most authentic moment is the most public and I believe that I am the most myself in those 90 minutes. What I do at home – calculating and constructing – is always wrong. “

The Producer

After the tour, the pianist becomes the producer. A selection process begins and what he calls “conscious creative work”, in contrast to his stage experiences. “This is a long time of consideration and choice. I have this huge bank of live recordings from half a year on tour. Then I start to listen to all these ideas, collect them and put them in order, put them on shelves. I wonder what the essence of what I tried to improvise on stage is. If I like something, I go to the piano and trace it back to its origin, and at that moment it is also mostly the newly-conceived work which then gets the permission of my head to grow now. Then I start recording, and that’s also the beginning of a certain label thinking. I notice how I change. Based on the live sound, the final statement or other factors, I judge if a piece makes it to the album. These pieces will then be further developed. You have to decide what length is the right one for the album, how many pieces should be on the album when the statement is made. The creative process moves to the background because it’s about making choices for a product.” A product which, and this circumstance doesn’t make his job any easier, is he himself.

The Entrepreneur

As free as Martin Kohlstedt acts on stage, as straightforward and stringent he is when it comes to leading his company, “because surprise could take away my freedom, at least from an organizational point of view. I like being reliably prepared to the point that I can be free. It is also very difficult for me to delegate tasks. Certain things I keep very close to me. In administration, I am almost obsessed with control and in the arts, I let go. There is a strong ambivalence between the improvisation in the performance itself and the organization of the surroundings.” Entrepreneurship, for Martin Kohlstedt, means creating a stable foundation on which artistic freedom can unfold. “Freedom is a central concept for me. After all, that is one of the reasons why you start your own business. All this is still a niche, but it has to be, so it can continue to be free. I could have gone to a big label two years ago and my attitude would have developed accordingly. But this freedom is what I permanently strive for. At the same time, however, one is subject to certain structures in the prison of the music business. But the idea of ​​freedom triggers everything, all of the energy springs from it.” It is very helpful to Kohlstedt the entrepreneur that 13 very close, trusted people, and friends ‘on eye level’ belong to his label.

“I want to continue to work that way. And because it’s so complex to communicate, I cannot hire anyone for it. This means that I need a team that has known me for a long time, with whom I grew up, a family, … “. The 13 people are the team, are the company”. When a release comes, these people really care about the album as a product. All of a sudden there is a different headline, and PR agencies need just that. I’m just the guy at the piano and the team makes sure that the album sells and that I get performances. […] Because the emotional attachment is higher than the economic one, it causes me to mediate between these 13 people. My job is mainly to communicate permanently. I have to hold the team. “

Forming a team, leading a company, recognizing the conditions of the market and representing them in one’s actions, artistically developing self-esteem and self-confidence, developing creative potential, making decisions and overcoming fears – there is a whole lot that we encounter in conversation with Martin Kohlstedt. It’s good to know that his life is not a straight line. “On the one hand I want to allow myself to keep things simple but then notice how the left half of the brain turns on and still wants to gain control. This dispute between right and left brain is my source of energy. That’s why the contradiction is likely to be a big incentive as well as the doubt. “Balancing opposites, meandering between the poles to get a little closer to his ultimately unattainable ideal of freedom.” The pursuit of freedom is always there, but in the end, all of these other conditions are contradictory. The goal is unattainable.” To strive for perfection with all available means. Even though one’s own experience teaches that by nature this is not possible at all? Perhaps this is also one of the central insights that make a concert by Martin Kohlstedt a very personal experience and a communal ceremony for the audience.

Read the full interview here (German Only).

Interview by Dirk Dobiéy and Katja Stenzel, Blog by Dirk Dobiéy, Translation Rodrigo Morales, Stephanie Barnes
Picture and Video Source: Martin Kohlstedt and Open SourceFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedintumblrmail