Corona approach – which factor can become decisive?

Author: Manu Steens

In this blog I write my personal opinion and not that of any organization.

Recently, the VRT (Flemish Radio and Television) stated that the fifth wave has started, with an expected 125,000 infections per day by mid-January.

That is very appealing of course, such numbers. But people want to know what the risk is and what the risk factors are. Classically speaking, one can say that:

Risk = probability x impact

In the case of this pandemic, if we dig deeper into these two factors, we can say in simplified terms that:

–         Probability = exposure x susceptibility x behavior

–         Impact = sensitivity x behavior

In the case of probability, the exposure is a function of the environment (directly proportional to the number of infected people in the environment of the person) in which an individual is located and the susceptibility is an internal factor of the human body: how receptive the body is to the exposure. The behavior here is a factor that implies caution on the part of the individual. This without any degree of pejorative intent: it is regardless of whether the behavior is reckless, such as people hanging too close to each other at the pub, or whether the job is a contact profession that entails this behavior, such as people taking care for patients with Covid19 in the ICU.

At the impact level, the sensitivity is an internal factor of the person’s body, such as someone who naturally has a strong immune system or, unfortunately, just doesn’t have a strong one. The behavior here is best illustrated by people who do or do not have themselves vaccinated. By having themselves vaccinated, if necessary several times, it has been shown that people who get corona suffer a significantly lower impact: they may still get sick, but it is less bad, and therefore there is a good chance that they will not end up in the ICU.

What does that mean, if we put this analysis back into the original formula of risk?

That behavior has an influence of at least squared. Why at least? Because situations are possible where the behavior can have a serious influence on exposure, for example by reducing the number of contacts where possible. But more than that: you can also protect others by adopting good behavior, such as doing a self-test before organizing a party, for example.

So the risk is in higher powers (than the square) dependent on behavior. So far for mathematics from the secondary high school.

That means that not only people should be “good citizens”, the government should direct that behavior as a major factor that can influence this fifth wave (actually any wave).

This applies to citizens as individuals, but also to organizations that depend on their employees. Having an adapted BCP and pandemic plan that is coherent in a flexible way with what the politicians and the legislator prescribe is therefore of enormous importance in the pandemic.

So there is more to it than just infectiologists, virologists and biostatisticians: just as much importance must be attached to what psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists can say about how to deal with this pandemic.

So an identified lesson from this mathematics is

  • More so to work on behavior in any pandemic, endemic or epidemic. The low numbers of flu in 2021 show that it works. So good behavior must be maintained.
  • Without neglecting the medical reality, of course. But as support to healthcare.

And if possible, without fear mongering. One has to work through the trust of the citizens. That which they have with their General Practitioner, their specialist, their caregivers in their own family, their teachers, the caregivers of their relatives, the social workers, community workers…

How to assess a measure of Business Continuity Management and Risk Management?

Author: Manu Steens

Within Risk Management and Business Continuity Management, each management discipline does it in its own way, risks and uncertainties are assessed in order to have more certainty in a VUCA world on the success or survival of the own organization.

The more or less succinct view on the way of working is that measures are linked to threats via an assessment. (I’m deliberately limiting risks to threats here, so as not to lose focus on the story, while perhaps what follows may be partly true or analogous to opportunities.)

These measures cost money and effort and must therefore be accountable. Until now I got only two answers in literature and at conferences:

  • Look at the costs versus benefits: if the prevention or mitigation costs more than the damage when the risk manifests itself, it is not worth the effort.
  • Look at the estimate of the residual risk, if that has not decreased enough in your opinion, it is not a good measure. The difference between the original risk and the risk after the measure must therefore be sufficiently large.

However, that won’t take you very far if you want to substantiate an argument as a process manager against a risk manager or business continuity manager who in turn has to discuss it with the board of directors or the Chief Resilience Officer (CRO) or in the C-suite.

What’s more, a process manager usually wants hands-on arguments, while a board member or CxO wants more strategic arguments. And then the principle comes into play: to give what is owed to them. Operational and strategic criteria are therefore needed with which to assess each measure.

Without wishing to be exhaustive in the criteria, nor the points for attention that may go with them, I would like to outline a possibility here by proposing such criteria. Note that each criteria can be viewed and further entered and supplemented by those organizations that want to use it. The examples of implementation are purely illustrative and certainly not exhaustive.

As a risk manager or as a business continuity manager, review the measure operationally with the process manager on the following criteria (where applicable):

  • Reliability (For example, if a part is out, there is a backup of processes, people, redundant structure of organization, infrastructure, …)
  • Maintainability (e.g. the building, its equipment, its processes, education and training, …)
  • Availability (e.g. emergency number, network, realizations, independence, visibility…)
  • Feasibility (For example, can it be organized? What legal structure is needed, required finances, required manpower,…)

As a risk manager or as a business continuity manager, look at the measure strategically with the higher manager (CRO, …) on the following criteria (where applicable):

  • Proportionality (Especially: Is a cost benefit evaluation possible, not only with return on investment (ROI) but especially with value on investment (VOI)? ‘More need can be met with the required money in another way than this’, would mean that this is disproportional; what kind of evaluation models are needed for that?)
  • Prudence (For example, what is a life worth? There is no rule of maximum caution here, I think, rather the question whether you can be more careful within budgets?)
  • Effectiveness (Among other things, are the benefits great in the cost-benefit analysis? Is the information flow between the right players? Is there an eye for quality by mapping the risks? Is the organization supportive of the operational and strategic requirements? Does it meet targets in time (for predictable crises to occur) to be able to perform exercises to create preparedness for future crises?)
  • Efficiency (Among other things, is the cost small in the cost-benefit analysis? Is the information flow smooth? Is there a will to collaborate within the networks, and is this with a subsidiary decision-making authority (which is a quality requirement)? Can the organization be reorganized flexibly, and is there a smooth collaboration with government? Are milestones for the plans met in a timely manner?)

Using such a well-thought-out framework of argumentation to substantiate the correctness of a measure, it can help to prevent misunderstandings or arbitrariness when formulating measures to be implemented.

If it has then been established in a subsidiary way at both the operational level and the strategic level that the measure makes sense, it may be safer to implement the measure for all parties, as a justification for a possible audit afterwards if things still go wrong later.

However, although there are the concepts of operational and strategic crisis management, it is not clear to me whether this way of working can be implemented in crisis management. This may be possible in the case of project operation in the aftercare phase. But that in itself may be an idea for others to check.

What is the BC Manager profile?

Author: Manu Steens

Inspired by the pdf of I. Helsloot “Veiligheid als (bij)product” available at https: // www.ifv.nl/kennisplein/Documents/2012-helsoot-veiligheid-als-bijproduct.pdf

I divide this question into the following questions:

” Why should BC Managers have a good interaction with and knowledge of Crisis? What responsibility do they have in crisis? So what position should they have?

​There are all kinds of principles that apply in safety, which make safety what it is.​

One such principle is that “the BC Managers (basically) serve their boss” 

​More detailed this could mean the following:​

that they must be employed by their boss (for his strategic goals) because otherwise there is a threat to the organization that the advice of BCM would be one-sided, it would benefit ‘their own’ subject (partial interest, preferences), without meaningful management. Meaningful management is very often about available money to realize the strategic goals. This means that an external or poorly placed BC Manager cannot make a balanced assessment of interests. This can lead to inefficient and ineffective operation.​

This means that the advice in such a situation would be one-sided, dogmatic (“Just do it!”) and that there is no integral advice.​

​What does that mean?​

In fact, it comes down very much to countering an advice trick of one-sided advisors, who repeat the words (attributed to Trevor A. Kletz) that sound very nicely as a one-liner: 

“If you think safety is expensive, try an accident”.

​The trick to countering this nice-sounding but hollow phrase is as follows:​

The situation of the advice is dismissed as to whether you can compare the costs of the measures against one risk with the costs of the misery that arises when that one risk materializes. However, you do not know in advance which risk will ultimately lead to misery, so you would have to prepare your organization for all risks (the costs of which amount to infinite) while only one risk ultimately leads to misery.​ Do you have to choose? No, the measures must be carefully considered and coordinated where possible. Where possible, a measure should cover as many risks as possible.

An example could be “optimum telework” which is useful when a building is unavailable, but which can also help when a pandemic occurs, when a slope shear is imminent at the main building, when heavy storms are imminent, etc.

Even in a crisis, there is too little time to coordinate several possible matters.​

  • That is why the BC Manager must present the proposed measures in an integrated manner. And not just as a sum of advice swept together.​
  • Therefore, BC Managers must be well aware of the other matters and purposes of their own organization.​
  • That is why priorities must also be made in Risk Management and integrated measures must be taken.​
  • That’s why a BIA and an RA are needed before starting a BCP document set . 
  • And finally: that is why the BC Manager must also be well informed about the target group of the BCP: the Crisis teams and the CMT of the
    organization: what the structure is, who is in it, who needs to know what about BCM.​ What BCM can mean for them.

​To be able to do this efficiently and effectively, a BC Manager must also have sufficient capabilities, and be able to talk to the management team at level, so also have insight into their budgets.​

​This reasoning applies not only when preparing for a potential crisis, but also during and after a crisis in its aftermath, when advice to the CMT, sponsor and senior management is needed.​

​For such goals to be realized by the BC Manager, they must have a holistic view of the organization, internally but also externally in its environment.​

​To meet these requirements, a heavy profile is needed.

The answer whether the BC Manager should be included in the C-suite for this reason is still not given. Personally, I’d rather let that question pass by.

Becoming future proof – how do you do that? Points of attention.

Author: Manu Steens

Inspired by ‘Ready or not’ by Tom Palmaerts.

‘Future proof’ also means being antifragile and resilient. Does resilience start with becoming future proof or is that just one of the entrances? I think it’s the latter.

What can we learn for Business Continuity Management (BCM), Risk Management (RM) and Crisis Management (CM) and on a personal level to become future proof?

The first thing, of course, is that we look into the future. We have to make time for that. If we don’t, we get too focused on what we already can. That produces a daily grind that stays present, giving rise to inefficiency. So variety is the key to adaptation. Further, variety of topics we focus on is also necessary because then we give our subconscious the chance to let a few 10,000ths of brain cells grind through on each of the problems.

However, care should be taken that it does not become too much so that you no longer dwell on a friend’s or acquaintance’s birthday than to send an emoji. The golden advice of Augustus (Ancient Rome) therefore remains valid: “festina lente” or make haste slowly. In fact, that was already an opinion that was close to Kahneman’s when he spoke about “Thinking Fast and Slow”: you have to go slower now and then, because quick decisions often do not survive a long-term vision.

So a right attitude is to embrace changes with slow thinking, which has everything to do with a first step: exploring those changes and the next step: anticipating changes, partly from gut feeling, partly from reason.

That’s why the advice is to stay focused, but in the right way: start with small things.

–         Check your e-mail only twice a day at fixed times.

–         Turn off your sound on your cell phone when you’re not on call. Don’t let yourself be disturbed, use the airplane mode of your smartphone if necessary.

–         Focus on one subject at a time in blocks of time, so that you can get into a ‘concentration flow’.

–         Change subjects regularly, so that your brain knows rest and continues to work subconsciously.

–         Decline meetings if they are not important.

–         Do creative brainstorms and group sessions regularly, at the time of the day when you are at your best.

In order to bring yourself to the best of your ability, there are also a few things you should take into account: you should explore the future from the best possible known and, above all, lived-through present. So:

–         Read a lot and regularly, and gain knowledge.

–         Love yourself.

–         Treat yourself to something tasty.

–         Use the gentle stimulus of calm music (for myself at least, for others it may be a bit rougher).

–         Use technology to support you.

–         Walk during the meetings.

–         Less coffee, more water, avoid sugar.

Second, we see that the masses choose a simple way out, even if it is wrong. Few choose to delve into the longer path that requires more discipline and patience. The masses know they are going wrong, but they don’t know either, because they don’t want to know. And before you know it, you’ll come across a Gray Rhino that is unavoidable. And that will happen again and again. In this way one learns more not from mistakes of the past than one does learn. And that has to do with brain economy. A one-off experience without great factual knowledge thus becomes a rule of thumb that one uses as a law of nature with absolute certainty. And the reason behind this is often ‘awareness of time’. Or the economical use of their personal time. As a result, many Americans stop by a store on their way to work to pick up a snack for breakfast, fueling obesity. And they know it.

From a time economy, we often choose the easy path at work. That feels safer, because it is familiar territory. It is not untrodden ground. And that goes well, until change is required. Then, of course, an unknown territory takes over, and it becomes more difficult for everybody to see, decide and act. This creates psychological resistance. One must therefore learn to experience overcoming a challenge as something delicious.

The reason why one should learn to enjoy being challenged is that one often gets into original situations, and therefore needs a growth mindset instead of a fixed mindset. This is the only way to push boundaries by alternately exerting and relaxing.

A realization that must penetrate to the core of the gut feeling is that what has previously been tried and failed, may now succeed if the system with which one works changes. After all, complex systems are systems that are time-dependent, in an unprecedented way. As a result, the system’s response to external influences cannot be predicted. Therefore, keep the sensors of your soul open for anticipation of changes in the situation, which is a complex system. Therefore, exploring futures is also useful. Adapt with further training, and think differently, for example from the point of view of scarcity. That could be sooner than you think. See also the UK after Brexit.

Subsequently, it is important to look for a tailor-made approach and solutions in an inspired way in crisis management and resilience management. A copy-paste of a Business Continuity Plan (BCP) from another organization does not work for your own organization and therefore does not add anything to your own resilience. The environment changes and everyone and everything is chasing the facts. So continuous adaptation and evolution is required. For organizations this means that the plans, the risk registers, the objectives must change. For people, this means sharpening skills and developing talents and competencies. For both, a vision of the future that is somehow correct is a must. Because one has to go to the core of the questions, the ‘5 x why technique’ is important to find the original causes.

Although it makes no sense to copy a plan from elsewhere, it is possible that inspired design makes sense. It can provide insights into one’s own situation from the situation of the other. That way an inspired version will be better than the original for your situation, even if it fails, because this is part of evolving.

In this way too, creating your own BCP, giving your own interpretation to the crisis teams, setting up your own risk management is innovation. Because it creates or contributes to value. But that cannot be done efficiently without learning from others

In addition, networking is also important because doing all that work without the internal and external customer and knowing the other stakeholders yields nothing useful. Or almost nothing.

So start from your sources, which you mix with the knowledge about your own current and future situations. Write down your own strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and help build insight into your own situation from there. But always mention your sources, otherwise you will be stealing.

Reverse engineer your sources: see why they work for them, and apply similar reasoning to your own situation.

That way you build your own flexibility. You get it back in no time, because you already had it as a child. Ultimately, agility is innate. Some lose that and become dinos in the business. Others sometimes adapt. Still others are constantly adapting. The latter is what you need. That can go so far that you also have to change dreams and goals. However, that does not mean that you should unlearn acquired skills. Because many things come back cyclically in history and you don’t know which ones in advance. But ‘panta rei’, and so the needs of everything and everyone are constantly changing.

A point of attention here is that experts sometimes try to be able to do everything. That does not work. You have to be able to let go of things. Others can do some things better than you can. However, these are external factors on which you should let nothing depend, but to which you must adapt yourself and your organization. Preparation is therefore ‘key’ and also your own flexibility. Learn to adjust your wishes. Among other things, by continuously learning, or by being curious and by daring to change your opinion in a well-founded and motivated way. A ‘worst case scenario’ in a BCP can thus better become a ‘reasonable worst case scenario’. By adapting in a reasonable way to what you and your organization can handle. What is needed is:

–         Using an open attitude.

–         Trying to be ‘reasonably all-round’.

–         Use fast and slow thinking.

Extremely important are:

–         The use of a cultural empathy and being in / creating a multi-cultural environment.

–         Think about whether you can do it yourself before going to a consultant, because you always know your own needs better than they do.

This makes you more independent, self-steering and more flexible.

Most importantly, even if you evolve well to become future proof, you must always remain a freshman. In the sense that you regularly still practice. Otherwise ideas turn into sterile theory that everyone eventually distrusts, except those who are concerned with ‘conspiracy theories’. So take your time for theory, but also for practice. Take pleasure in both, come up with original things, and before you know it there will be another evolution. This requires interest, as the engine of lifelong learning. When is the best time to do that? When you feel the passion for it. For the content. Note: you don’t have to have a passion to do “something”, but to do “that”.

To further steer that in the right direction, you have to break through the bubble that you were taught in your upbringing. To see your blind spots in what you want to develop. Therefore: travel, do conferences, imagine your dreams, start a ‘secret’ talk club for extreme thoughts.

So: as said: passion comes first. You have to dream big, but start small. Step by step you move forward. Provide content first, look and feel after. Collaborate with competitors and see what you can create together. Go hang out with them. And put your passion to the test.

Besides all this that is based on good will, saying that there is a threat is usually meaningless. One must feel it. So creativity is needed to make this feel. This creativity must be stimulated from the youth years. A STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education should therefore also contain art. (Then it becomes STEAM) After all, design is necessary to establish a link between people and technology.

Thinking about the future should always be based on today’s reality. Otherwise it will not be accepted. That is why working step by step is also important here. A challenge for crisis teams is therefore the fact that risks sometimes seem to make leaps and bounds, because events can sometimes occur suddenly.

To think about the future from the present, with a multi-cultural and technical and scientific background, you should also visit other entities and other governments. Discuss with them their approach and point of view and your own.

However, to think diversely in a group, inclusion is needed. A good Cultural Quotient (CQ) (and culture-based empathy) and adaptability are required for this. Together you have more depth and therefore better insights into your own situation. A better 360° view. Without inclusion, it is just a check-the-box exercise for diversity policy. With a good CQ, look not only inwardly, into your own organization, but also at world developments, far and near from you. Look to the future and the past, to be and remain successful. A strong element in this can be creating your own knowledge-sharing network for people with common interests. A mindset to dare to take risks is essential here.

What must, as an example of daring, is to regularly (dare to) raise the bar. The crisis teams must be informed about the world. In addition, risk leadership is a means to this end. Everything must be openly discussed, hard for the results but with a heart for the people.

In line with this, it makes sense for each of the employees in the crisis teams to look daily at what they are grateful for that day, every day. This focuses on the positive, which increases resilience. Because gratitude, just like being flexible, leads to more happiness. And happiness is one of the most essential conditions for being future-proof.

Is a Growth Mindset always better than a Fixed Mindset in Crisis Management ?

Author: Manu Steens

A very good friend of mine recently took a course on growth mindset and fixed mindset in preschoolers. It turns out that gifted preschoolers are more likely to simply jump over the problems than normally gifted preschoolers, who struggle with the same problems. You would say “good!” but is it? As a result, they do not fall into the pit of the problem and do not learn to climb out of it. As a result, they only take on problems that they can jump over without any problems. They don’t take on challenges. And that can cause for a fixed mindset later in life. People now see this and are trying to change this mindset of these toddlers into a growth mindset.

For me as a crisis manager, that actually first raises the question: “What is a growth mindset and what is a fixed mindset?” and since crisis management has a lot to do with struggling with problems and climbing out of potholes: “What’s important about it for my organization? Where can I place who?”

The phenomenon of “Growth Mindset ” versus “ Fixed Mindset” therefore seems important .

A good explanation of the difference between the two can be found at https://changedepartment.nl/wat-zijn-de-fixed-mindset-en-de-growth-mindset/

(It is in Dutch, but you can use an on-line translator device, right?)

The author of that article, Lodewijk Gimberg , gives the following explanation:

What is a fixed mindset?

“The people who stand behind the fixed mindset, or who walk around with it, are convinced that capacities, for example the talent to be able to analyze well, are fixed. If you are successful at something, you have a talent for it. It is therefore better to avoid things that you can do less well. This way there are no errors and you will not receive negative feedback about these matters. When people have a fixed mindset, they generally give up more quickly and put less or no effort into learning new things.

People with a fixed mindset often also believe that there is virtually no development possible about yourself, your qualities and skills. The persons with a fixed mindset are convinced that their behavior is immutable. A fixed mindset therefore hinders growth and development because ‘we do things the way we always did them’.”

What is a growth mindset?

“That is exactly the case with growth mindset. There is opportunity for development. You are open to improving your qualities, personality and work to be performed. People or persons who have a growth mindset will not give up easily and resign themselves to the fact that the things they want to achieve will have to go step by step. Learning from the situation and how best to approach it is part of the process of a growth mindset. The growth mindset is therefore an important catalyst behind performance improvements and changes.”

These differences, he writes, are vital in an organization. He therefore argues in favor of converting a fixed mindset into a growth mindset.

If I interpret what it says here succinctly, people with a fixed mindset are not suitable for acquiring a competence outside of their talents. But I think there are also opportunities within talents. There is even a booklet about: “I choose for my talent” by Luk Dewulf .

Are fixed mindsetters therefore lost to society? I do not think so. After all, working within your talents is much more fun than outside. Working within talents gives more energy than it costs. Beyond that, it mainly costs energy. That’s why I think it’s careless to define fixed mindsetters in that way. There should be a definition that applies gray zones. And what is missing on the websites I refer to are examples.

In my opinion, interest is an important factor in this. I am trying to give an example of a fixed mindset . Mea culpa if I hit the ball wrong.

People who systematically learn a lot are ICT specialists . Every now and then a new type of system comes out, be it servers or operating systems, and ICT security is already completely driven to the top: the rogue world does not stand still. The security of an organization must therefore always adapt to a changing world.

This brings us to crisis management: this is a strategic world par excellence that must arm itself against new forms and types of threats.

Let’s move on to more tactical stuff.

Fixed mindsetters believe they should stick to their talent ? A talent can be that you enjoy juggling with servers and operating systems. That you enjoy analyzing the customer’s situation and parameterizing those servers and operating systems with ease, so that you install the ideal working environment for your internal customers, namely the business. You are a “miracle kid”. And then you put everything in clear procedures of how you did it, with the necessary screen prints. A child can then do the job the next time. While you indulge in exploring new business needs. Because that falls within your talents.

With your procedures you have been an enormous help to the BC manager, who plans a large part of his ICT continuity, together with the ICT security manager .

On a certain day, the testing of the ICT continuity plans will be discussed. The procedures of the fixed mindsetter work smoothly. That’s how it should be. And he does it with pleasure. After all, it is his “dada”. It is something which is good to do for him. Analyzing and applying. And keep applying.

Then a crisis happens. A nearby river bursts its banks and overflows the server park of the organization. The water is high. An ICT world is thus confronted with a problem from a non-ICT world. The havoc is enormous. Not just for the organization. What has to happen? The fixed mindsetter does not know that at that moment. This is not his job, is his reasoning. Is that good or bad? He chooses to stay in his comfort zone , because otherwise the challenge becomes too much, and threatens to enter the panic zone.

Then the Crisis Management team takes action. Together with the BC Manager, they determine the priorities and determine a strategic solution. And they do it thoroughly: relocation of the company, so that this crisis cannot happen again. And modernize: we are going to build a new server park from the ground up. With the latest technology. But first, the disaster recovery site must be set in motion. That is a cold site, the fixed mindsetter knows. And those servers, right, let’s think, how do we go about that? This is a known issue. The principles are the same as when setting up the primary server park. The procedures are on a spare laptop. The backups work, because they were regularly checked to fix minor system errors. “My dada” the fixed mindsetter thinks again. And the work is moving forward.

A few days later, the disaster recovery site is up and running.

That was possible, because his team leader let him continue to work from his comfort zone: known solutions for experienced problems.

The strategic decisions of the CMT ignore the fixed mindsetter. Their own work comes first.

The CMT is now having heated discussions: where should we relocate ? What threats are there? What is there we don’t know yet? And above all: is that opportune for the employees of the organization? Now maybe no one has drowned, but what are the threats to the staff in which place? How fast can we find a building again? And if we were to work hybrid, could we get by with a smaller building, let alone with a renovated mansion? All questions we were not aware of before. The questions are solved step by step. And that will make it all right, they want to believe. They can believe that, because they come from their comfort zone into a wide dare zone. They dare to experiment.

So far an example of a collaboration between fixed and growth mindset. Both groups in this example may be endowed with a more than decent IQ, and with interests in their field.

If I see a Growth Mind setting CMT in this way working together with a Fixed Mind setter, here as an example a specialist in ICT who only follows his talents and can make perfect analyzes with them, then I think that a fixed mindsetter, through his work for the purpose of disaster recovery, to the BC Manager and CMT are a good added value.

Some will not agree with this example, because the fixed mindsetter in the example has developed into an ITer. I wish to disprove this statement, because by entering an organization as a “unexperienced person” he ends up in a culture where he can be given the opportunity to learn the trade in ICT himself, where “we always did it like this: buy a server, find the instructions from the OS, and install according to good principles” builds in some degree of flexibility.

Some will say that I am ignoring the principle that a fixed mindsetter stops developing. I also want to contradict that, in the sense that it is very black and white. There may also be gray areas here. God must have his number.

However, there are also those that have indeed come to a standstill in terms of development. They will benefit more from a mind switch.

Let’s go back to the children with whom everything starts: “everyone is born with a growth mindset” you can read on the website of Charlotte Labee : https://www.charlottelabee.com/wat-is-het-different-between-growth -mindset-and-fixed-mindset/

However, along their life path, people are confronted with situations that teach them a fixed mindset.

Indeed, there is much to be said for tackling the situation from the very beginning. An enormous responsibility for schools, and also for pre-school education. Our crisis management can depend on it. Challenge those gifted children! Adapted education also for those who can do more than the average !

However, one thing has been debunked : fixed mindsets are not worthless. As you progress in your talents, you can become an expert in your field. And that can be a dream come true. That is possible with many, because I do not believe that the situation of people is either black or white. Doing something or doing nothing with your talents is much more black and white in my opinion. That is why interest is an important factor. It does allow development, albeit for a fixed mindsetter within his talents.

But a growth mindset can also be active within a field of a talent. These are often the people who work on original problems in their field. Putting together original solutions for new challenges step by step in order to arrive at a solution.

When I think about it, back related to ICT, I fear that the rogue world, hackers for example, is in the advantage. They look for solutions to steal where, for example, banks raise obstacles with security, in order to protect their customers’ money. And their successes are in the newspapers every day. They easily spend 70% of their stolen revenues in R&D. Among the “good guys” there are well-known anti-malware companies at the top of ICT Security. But they are always lagging behind. The new malware actually comes first.

Companies that develop new technology, thanks to their growth mindsets, can help an entire army of fixed mindsets find work.

“Do we all have to invent a new kind of bread to be bakers?” seems like a fair question to me. Many difficult problems can still be solved by fixed mindsetters, within their talents. And this situation is very common. Very many top doctors don’t come up with new remedies for unresolved medical problems, very many top engineers don’t bring new types of technologies to the market.

In my opinion, both can work together perfectly , as long as one can keep the fixed mindsetter within the comfort zone. Both can realize dreams. But I do think that both dream differently.