The implications of family Non-Disclosure Agreements [NDA]
by
Dominik v. Eynern, Family Hippocampus
02 August 2024
Table of Contents[i]
Learned Helplessness and Mindsets. 10
Psycho-biological implications of staying passive. 19
Abstract
Business families have an implicit rule called Omertà, an oath of secrecy regarding family dealings, in organized crime families in southern Italy. Breaking it, results in pre-mature death of the “traitor”.
In this paper we examine the implications of not breaking the silence for the individual family member, the family and the family business at the example of a fictional business family. Family member-shareholders find themselves in various social dilemma situations that they need to solve via normalization in a peer-group setting to maintain economic solvency and preserve their own mental health. This paper should contribute to enterprise families finding more harmony (or synchronisation) which is a dynamic state of a social system that enables authentic (and efficient) collaboration[i] to preserve and perpetuate the legacy of the family enterprise.
Introduction
In this paper, we assume a dynastic family with 50 family members and 20 shareholders, 2 branches and 5 sub family systems. The patriarch is from branch 1 and the CEO of the business in the 3rd generation, the shareholders range from the 3rd to the 5th generation.
In general, shareholders are part and parcel of good corporate governance and have statutory rights like the exoneration of the CEO and the advisory board after they have been informed about the progress the family business has made. Naturally, critically thinking shareholder ask questions to ascertain the economic validity and viability of the business performance measured by e.g., a return on capital employed:
Please note, that dividend payments do not play role in this context. Dividends are often at the core of disputes because the family is demanding dividend payments while the business is keen to retain earnings for investments, especially in the absence of access to financial markets.
Another KPI could be challenged by relating the ROCE to the risk that was taken to produce the ROCE and calculate the Sharp Ratio[ii] i.e., a ‘reward-to-variability ratio’:
This scrutiny corresponds to the Principal/Agency theory, which assumes that agents like the CEO cannot be trusted to act in the sole interest of the shareholders. Rather, the CEO is suspected to act in his or her own interest while managing the business, thus control is of the essence. This is contrary to the Stewardship Theory, where controls are not necessary because the CEO is the Steward who’s trusted to act in the interest of the shareholders running the business.
Many family businesses follow the Stewardship model where the patriarch is the CEO. Often, shareholders are denied active ownership of their wealth and inheritance and do not play a role in the corporate governance of the family business, nor should they in the view of the patriarch because being transparent as a CEO comes at a cost to him as a self-perceived steward. Answering questions and being under scrutiny may be perceived as curtailing the sense of agency and it also may be interpreted as mistrust by the family shareholders.
The Stewardship Model with exclusion of family members was favored and practiced for the past 100 years[iii]. Consequently, critical thinking, active participation of any form and contributions was neither encouraged nor invited which leads to mere legal co-ownership with the danger of entitled behaviours.
When legal business ownership is perceived as entitlement it becomes a burden for everyone, but when it is taken as responsibility it becomes a purpose[iv], which is benefical to everyone, including the patriarch and his legacy.
The shareholders of the next generation demand to be responsible and accountable shareholders and grew up in a pluralistic world with critical thinking that created financially literate shareholders who work(ed) in businesses e.g. M&A advisory and investment banking.
When the patriarch is from the predecessor generation, he’s formed boundaried belief-systems based on the Stewardship Theory which we can call a belief bubble.
Analogous, the next generation demands mental as well as legal co-ownership and has formed a belief-bubble based on the Principal/Agent theory in conjunction with the responsibility and accountability they carry as shareholders and care takers for the next generation.
In line with this approach, shareholders are deeming the Steward a de-facto Agent, leading to misunderstandings because of belief-bubble clashes. This leads to the buildup of tensions followed by tension releases. Tension releases are non-linear phenomenon which can create emotional hurts on both sides, especially during the acceleration phase.
Three factors can drive tension-buildups:
- Shareholders have a responsibility to look after how their capital is deployed, regardless of how it was acquired (e.g. inheritance)
- In a multigenerational family business, the shareholders are the custodians of the wealth which is borrowed from the next generations and will be held accountable for the outcome of their custody performance by the next generation.
- The patriarch perceives himself as steward and denies shareholders their role in corporate governance despite the responsibility and accountability they hold.
Illustration 1
The predevelopment phase between 1 and 4 can be interpreted as the initial condition X0, followed by an acceleration phase from 5 (tipping point or critical threshold) to 13 and the stabilization phase from 14 onwards is a meta-stable state, where the system is temporarily stationary. The area under the curve is the sum of changes.
Individual psychodynamics and family dynamics can be severely distorted, and the business may lack efficient oversight, leading to underperformance and in extreme cases, bankruptcy with severe, negative implications for all stakeholders in the business, including the employees and their families.
In the following paragraphs, we explore the tensions arising between the responsible and accountable shareholder vs. the oppressive patriarch and what counter measures could be taken to release the tensions in an orderly manner for better outcomes for the business and for the associated social systems.
Framework
Our intra and interpersonal communication represents our behavioral patterns driven by emotion and cognitions embedded and fed by family values, cultural values and belief systems which are shaped by our experiences from which our mental model of the world is created.
The outcome of the socialization process of an individual is a subjective mental model of the world which determines how the individual perceives the world resp. how the individual responds to the world. In any social process, 2 or more different mental models of the world communicate with various degrees of overlap. Through the application of cognitive and emotional empathy, inquiry and active listening the overlap can be increased which is conducive to creating a shared reality and shared intentionality.
Children learn implicitly and explicitly through observation, imitation and reinforcement (reinforcement learning) from multiple agents in multiple social contexts, through intrapersonal communication and interpersonal communication.
On a micro level, the core family with the immediate care takers are the primary source of learning which also take influence over the child’s behavior through transgenerational epigenetics.
At the meso level are schools, religious institutions but also institutions the business family may have created.
The macro level describes the culture of the business family is embedded in the culture of the country the family originates from resp. lives in with all its social and cultural norms informed by history and traditions.
Micro patterns influence patterns on the meso and macro level which in turn influences patterns on the meso and micro level. The higher the level the greater the inertia to change, especially with ubiquitous but often dysfunctional traditional thinking styles[v].
However, revolutions attempt to change things on a macro level – including the push for change in business families that are often in suppressed by the top brass and by the psychological corsets of family members on a micro level.
Linear thinking
The linear thinking perspective is a belief, that a behavior, attitude, or action of an individual is mono- causal and will repeat regardless of changed circumstances in a socio-cultural or changes in the individual’s development stage. It’s a judgment-based assumptions, projecting, generalizing an experience from the past without further inquiry, creating a perceptual frame for future social reference and social processes on an intra- and interpersonal level by creating automatic thought patterns. Thus, generalizations often lead to systemic and internalized oppression. They instill dysfunctional beliefs in the self and in other persons, creating inner conflicts that are externalized at some point and limiting peoples intellectual, emotional, and spiritual growth. By definition, it denies non-linear evolutions.
Linear thinking is also leads to the assumption that every problem can be decomposed down and solved in its parts and reassembled to represent a solution to the problem at hand. The states of sub-systems determine the composite state of the entire system S and vice versa.
This reductionist approach is the philosophical foundation of science[vi] today but it leads to many unintended consequences, including but not limited to – in social resp. moral decisions!
This problem can be alleviated through wholistic and complex thinking as alluded to below.
Hierarchical thinking
It starts with putting the self or others into superior or inferior positions, dividing the world in respect and disrespect valuing individual achievements greater than group achievements. It creates internalized privileges and entitlements, especially with over-regulation of the self, leading to narcissistic traits on one side or the down regulation leading to people pleasers, rescuers and finally victims which are also in the entitlement spectrum. It also leads to ingroup favoritism which becomes problematic when intergroup discrimination with symmetric perceptions morphs into inefficient social process outcomes such as nepotism and/or conflicts.
It also can lead to emotional hurt from belittlement and social rejection as we will discuss below.
Dichotomous thinking
The dichotomous mindset is judgmental resp. digital as it divides the world in right and wrong, in us vs. them. It is aligned with the hierarchical thinking style described above. The combination of both thinking styles is potent in favoring discriminatory behaviors, oppression, and marginalization of social process constituents.
All three thinking styles are the cultural foundations in western communities. They inhibit synchronization of belief-bubbles and hence the creation of a shared reality. Instead, these thinking styles are conducive to create information asymmetries and social conflicts. They block cognitive and emotional empathy in people and make social processes highly inefficient with negative implication for the individual, the entire social system and vice versa.
However, they are core to the perception of social information and the way people respond to social stimuli.
Complex thinking
Reality is a subjective conception which remains fragmented with thinking styles that are linear, dichotomous and hierarchical, conducive to conflict related to evaluations and judgements expressed in right and wrong, us and them. Holistic thinking opens a fuller and richer reality[vii].
The complex thinking style embraces the idea that the whole is more than the sum of its parts (Aristotle) and accepts the world as a complex dynamical system.
E.g. Our embodied cognitions based on perceptions of faces or ambiguous optical illusions relies holistic properties. Making meaning of stimuli we are exposed to is a systemic activity, driven by a sematic network linked by associations within a given context. These cognitions are based on concepts that cannot be broken down in meaningful concepts[viii] and are thus irreducible. The same applies to our thoughts and feelings and mental states resp. mental state transitions.
These systems can be interpreted as complex dynamics systems that are inherently non-linear, accepting multi-causality and the multilayered dynamics on micro-meso-macros levels, and multi-dimensional character of phenomena with its reinforcing and diminishing feed-back loops over many iterations to converge to the relative truth rather than to achieve the universal and absolute truth that doesn’t exist in the view of the author.
It allows for superpositions, i.e., it allows for multiple states of a system or situation present at the same time (diunital thinking [ix]) while weighing all options based on (quantum) probabilities. It entails reflections from various perspectives and the suspension of (immediate) judgement, presupposing an open mind and a growth mindset.
Complex thinking entails to switch thinking styles depending on context, thus linear, hierarchical or dichotomous thinking styles are not entirely obsolete but should not be the general and prevailing thinking styles that they are still today.
After all, true power comes from an understanding of the connection between seemingly disparate things, situations and people, not the primitive force of applying more strength (Taoism)[x].
We will encounter the concept of thinking styles throughout this paper.
Social decision-making
Social decision-making is a relational game that defines reality, which implies comparisons and evaluations (dichotomous thinking style). Social comparison with moral emotions and cognitions elicits emotional and cognitive processes that initiate adaption processes of intra- and inter-personal psychodynamical patterns.
Morality plays a significant role in social processes and social systems for context bound, social actions. It can be considered the degree of adherence to the social norms accepted by social agents of the same social system.
Humans’ actions take place in a socio-cultural context. It is the infrastructure in which social patterns emerge. This infrastructure is characterized by social norms which implicates moral repercussions based on judgements of adequacy of behaviors, i.e., evaluations and judgements of right and wrong (dichotomous thinking style) depending on complex interactions of intrapersonal emotions and cognitions as well as the complex interpersonal exchanges.
Moral emotions and cognitions are linked to the interest or welfare of others and are evoked by situations beyond the SELF and its interests. They encourage or inhibit behaviors depending on social acceptability, modulated by social actions[xi] and feedback loops.
Moral emotions include shame (one’s own attribution of reduced self-value and self-esteem upon violation of a moral norm after comparison between self – and others, comparison with own/others social standards), embarrassment (experienced when a social code is violated and exacerbated by public exposition), pride, envy and Schadenfreude, guilt (self-judgement, judgement by others guided by internal representation of values) as well as goal-driven social actions associated with moral emotions are e.g., affiliation, comfort, revenge, escape behaviors to prevent self-contempt. These patterns shape individual psychodynamics and behaviors as well as the dynamics of the social system on a higher level[xii], even if they do not exist on a deeper existential level as they are merely socially conditioned[xiii].
This corresponds to the aforementioned thinking styles (linear, hierarchical, dichotomous) that are used to navigate social spaces, to predict behaviors and to evaluate the accuracy of one’s prediction and to judge own and others’ behaviors. The anterior cingulate cortex in our brains is implicated in error detection and thus plays a decisive role in moral judgements.
Emotions play a pivotal role in morality according to the somatic marker hypothesis [Antonio Damasio]. Emotions are signals arising from the body that help regulate complex decision-making processes in conjunction with the brains’ executive functions, especially the ventro-medial pre-frontal cortex [vmPFC] which also holds goals we want to achieve. The ventromedial part of the prefrontal cortex is the control centre which mediates between the ventral striatum (processing the anticipation of rewards) and the amygdala. The vmPFC holds information about the context of the situation and can increase and decrease the activation levels in the amygdala and the ventral striatum.
This dyadic neuronal assembly of the ventral striatum and the amygdala is a sounding board creating visceral reactions to a stimulus which is either attractive or repulsive without further deliberation.
The rapid reaction center is the amygdala which is implicated in moral learning and in the response to social threats[xiv], such as the fear of being judged, punished and the fear of social rejection. The latter has been shown to elicit the insula, a neuronal structure that connects the brain with the body via the vagus nerve running through the spine) and detects physical pain in the body linked to physical injuries. Thus, social rejection is literally a hurtful event we try to avoid.
The amygdala contributes to automatic emotions of morally salient actions[xv]. It is implicated in the stress related activation of the sympathetic nervous system which drives the flight, fight and freeze responses to perceived threats and it downregulates cognitive processing capacities leading to cognitive control failures which leads to higher reactivity that favors conflicts in social processes.
Thus, moral emotions and cognitions play a functional role in regulating social behaviors as they are the creators and the police of behavioral boundaries for functional social systems. At the same time, they can inhibit necessary personal and social change as we discuss in the following paragraphs.
Learned Helplessness and Mindsets
It is a concept first introduced by Martin E. P. Seligman et.al.[xvi]. In an experimental setting, they exposed dogs to electric shocks. One set A was given the option to control their exposure by escaping, the other set B did not have the option to escape. When set B was given the option to escape, they remained and endured the electrical shocks. Seligman et. al.[xvii] demonstrated this effect was caused by the uncontrollability of the events, driven by cognitive and emotional processes.
In the human domain this is far more complex, and the outcomes can have severe implications in a business family setting.
The learning process
Learning is grounded in perception, which is one of the reasons why we create ontologies which help us to interpret the information we are exposed to. Ontic interpretations are based on our mental model of the world which is shaped during our lifetime based on experiences. It is the core psychological structure through which perceive, interpret and respond to the world driven by our cognitions and emotions.
Emotionally saliant events like childhood neglect, overparenting or other traumatic events like reoccurring social rejections are associated with learned helplessness.
The repeated exposure to situations that are perceived as being beyond any sense of control of a person engages them in a negative reinforcing feed-back-loop that programs people’s inability to make decisions, respond actively and to exhibit intentional and purposeful behaviors.
In the context of a business family, the learning of helplessness is supported by traditional thinking styles (linear, hierarchical, dichotomous), especially in an AGM setting: shareholders are denied their voice and sense of agency which creates the belief of reoccurring if not permanent powerlessness which corresponds to the belief that noting can be changed whatsoever.
A dangerous, reinforcing feed-back-loop through the confirmation-bias is set in motion, i.e., the belief of powerlessness is reinforced by this perceptual bias. The belief of powerlessness is true and evidenced with every event, while counterevidence is ignored or even rejected. Over time this can be combined with self-attributions, even though the event was demonstrably outside of the sphere of influence of the individual. Another outcome may be generalizations – the belief of powerlessness is affecting all areas of life (trans-situationality).
Learned helplessness involves the amygdala[xviii] that again, is implicated in threat and fear responses as well as in chronic and toxic stress, weighing on social intelligence and intellectual performance potentials.
As a result, many maladaptive behaviors can emerge such as: low sense of agency, passivity, avoidance behaviors, low risk appetite, procrastination, indecisiveness, self-doubt, low motivation and lack of effort, low self-esteem, victimization, resignation, worthlessness, high reactivity etc.
Learned helplessness is the root cause of social / generalized anxiety disorders and/or depression[xix]. It may also correspond to the Imposter Syndrome[xx] which is often linked to low self-esteem, anxiety and depression. It is a belief of inadequacy of their abilities and lack of ownership of their achievements in conjunction with the fear to be discovered and perceived as incompetent.
Another link on the back of the traditional thinking styles (linear, hierarchical, dichotomous) can be made to a Growth Mindset and Fixed Mindset[xxi]. The core belief of a fixed mindset is that behaviors driven by thinking and feeling patterns of the individual influenced by social contexts cannot be changed and specific outcomes are inevitable. This implicates the belief that making an effort does not carry a positive expectation value and any deficiencies must be hidden at all costs for the fear of self-judgement and the judgement of other. Mistakes are not seen as an opportunity to learn and avoidance behaviors, defensive attitudes, reactivity, and the feeling of constant threat are inefficient outcomes and major stressors for the individual with negative implications for social dynamics.
Learned helplessness can and must be unlearned by changing one’s mind-set to a Growth Mindset[xxii] and by start thinking wholistically and adopting a complex thinking style. The growth mind-set centers around the belief that change is possible through learning (e.g., by interpreting mistakes as a development opportunity), by embracing challenges and that effort has a positive pays-off.
Changing the mindset by influencing thinking and feeling patterns leads to more self-efficacy and allows to unlearn helplessness, which is a prerequisite for solving moral dilemmas, which in turn are strong inhibitors to change and to unlearn helplessness.
Learned helplessness, a fixed mind set, and the imposters syndrome are based on limiting beliefs that reduce psychological freedom degrees which is not conducive to solve moral dilemmas which we will discuss in the next section.
Moral Dilemmas
The business family are dilemmatic per-se[xxiii] as they have certain social norms on a macro level and social interactions on a micro level are characterized by linear, hierarchical, and dichotomous thinking across the three sub-systems (family, business, ownership) with implications for moral emotions and cognitions and implications for impermeable belief-bubbles that fail to synchronize.
It is a social drift for diversity in business families[xxiv] i.e., diversity in expectations, sub-system logics, generational divides with the previous generation clinging to a patriarchal approach enforcing homogeneity while the next generation demands pluralism which implies heterogeneity and purpose driven conducts and decisions.
For instance, when the business savvy 4th generation believes the steward is mis-conducting him or herself by not acting in the best interest of the greater good of the company and the shareholders and challenges the situation driven by their motivation to perform as responsible and accountable custodians for the next generation, the steward is fending off the attempts to challenge him to protect his own sphere as he interprets these attempts an incompetent interference based on mistrust, which he does not deserve after all he’s done for the company.
The defense strategy is fear based, driven by a fixed mindset and traditional thinking styles, often with a sense of entitlement, harsh judgements and authoritarian force, assuming that everyone in the family has been conditioned as obedient people pleasers easy to contain by forceful actions and reactions including but not limited to belittlements and ignorance. To contain the fallout from these actions, the steward issues a non-disclosure decreet and commands that what family member-shareholders experience is normal in business families.
On one side, moral emotions like embarrassment, shame, and guilt are elicited in the family members; on the other side moral dilemmas are created since the motivation and desire to be responsible and accountable shareholders does not disappear as hoped by the steward would happen in response to his actions.
This creates several dilemmas for the responsible and accountable shareholders.
The first dilemma arises from the importance of speaking up as responsible and accountable shareholder versus the social norm of not speaking up. To solve this dilemma, it may be useful to normalize the experience by reaching out to peers which is a second dilemma: breaking the NDA decree.
Moral dilemmas have been researched by Greene et. al.[xxv]. In an experimental setting, participants are confronted with the situation to safe 5 people by diverting a deadly trolly running toward them by pulling a lever which inevitably will kill 1 person.
Illustration 2
The footbridge dilemma is similar in the sense that the agent stands on a footbridge over tracks with a training running towards 5 people tied to the tracks behind the footbridge. The agent can safe 5 people by pushing the second person on the footbridge which would stop the train.
Illustration 3
The question is what the agent decides to do. Killing people violates the moral code and the deontological decision would be to do nothing because the choice cannot be justified by the consequence, especially when the agent doesn’t pull a lever but needs to actively push someone to death hands-on. The associated emotion intensity of touching some one seems to exacerbate the negative connotation to push a person to death. The utilitarian decision would be to sacrifice one person to save 5 lives as the end justifies the means – a paraphrase of Niccolò Machiavelli.
Greene postulates that the deontological decision is very much driven by intuition, heuristics and emotional patterns (fast System I[xxvi] for structural responses) while the utilitarian decision requires more elaboration and deliberation. It is driven by cognitions (slow System II[xxvii] which is active in evaluation of System I and processes novelties with purposeful controlled reasoning), based on measured response times. However, it has been shown that emotions are involved in both possible choices – the deontological as well as in the utilitarian moral decision-making[xxviii]. System I is rather pervasive and it’s a fact that human reasoning frequently depends on System I rather than System II. This explains the many violations of normative criteria[xxix]. Thus, emotions influence moral decisions, even if they are utilitarian in nature.
In the context of annual general meeting of the family business, the dilemma is either to follow the deontological approach or the utilitarian approach which comes at a cost to the self, i.e., to be the responsible and accountable shareholder, speak up and kill one’s inner peace because of disrespecting the family code. Speaking up to ‘save’ the business for the greater good implicates the risk of emotional hurts, social rejection, as well as feelings of shame and guilt that the top brass tries to instill.
Naturally, this elicits inertia which needs to be overcome first which requires a considerable amount of deliberation resp. System II activity as System I is a significant and dominating force that drives behaviors and decision-making, but it is relative inflexible.
How to solve it
It is vital for the well-being of the family in a psychobiological and economic sense that family members do not succumb to learned helplessness with a fixed mind set and the risk of adopting the imposter syndrome. It is also important to release tensions in a neutral space rather than in the contentious business family space where uncontrolled, non-linear tension releases can cause severe damage to the mental health of family members which poses a risk to the social and financial capital of the family.
Everyone needs to learn, as it is the only viable responds to the only constant of life which is change. All must overcome and embrace resistance which allows us to learn to swim, if we don’t do it, we simply drown [xxx].
To learn to create more self-efficacy, open mindness and connectedness, we contribute to social efficacy and improve family dynamics. The desired outcomes are to lose handbrakes and get rid of limiting beliefs, unaccepted aspects of ourselves that trigger defense mechanism[xxxi] e.g., justifications, validations, excuses etc. It is pivotal that we raise awareness on a relational and contextual awareness and eliminate learned helplessness, the imposter syndrome and to adopt complex thinking and a Growth Mindset which implies psychological freedom degrees for the ability to make utilitarian decisions with confidence in conjunction with other systemic tools, such as personal reflection, self-awareness and perspective taking to gain a better understanding of the mental model of the world of self and others, the expectation carousel which is a collective reflection process to become aware of the various expectations and demands within a given context, the tetralemma tool which provides a number of dichotomous decision options: 1) decide for one option and against the alternative, 2) create new alternative and decide or 3) incorporate both options, 4) decide against both options or decide to stay neutral altogether because you cannot be bothered which makes this tool a penta-lemma. These systemic tools are aiming to open up mental space to deal with dilemmatic situations[xxxii]. These are all dichotomous thinking style approaches which can be combined with the design thinking process[xxxiii] which is a bottom-up, back to the drawing board technique that requires the complex thinking style.
To initiate change processes and work with these systemic tools it paramount to gain psychological freedom degrees which is the initial condition for personal psychological and emotional processing. That is the prerequisite for the initiation of social change processes.
Psychological freedom degrees can be created by normalization techniques.
Normalization is the process by which thoughts, behaviours, moods and experiences are compared and understood in terms of similar thoughts, behaviours, moods and experiences attributed to other individuals”[xxxiv]
Cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT], and neuro linguistic programming [NLP] use the method of normalization among other techniques to create a neutral space for tension release and self-development to achieve desired outcomes. In other words, it loosens the hand break with a wholistic approach.
The first step is interoception which is the first step to reflect and lean about the self, but if we looked into a mirror, we would learn different things about the self that we cannot learn solely from interoceptive analysis of our conscious experience[xxxv]. This mirror is represented by the peer-group.
On an eye-to eye level without hierarchies, the aim is to expand the conscious experience related to family dynamics through interoception resp. mutual reflection and raise contextual awareness as our meaning making processes are highly context dependent. It is also vital to understand the experience triggered by internal and external events through cognitive reappraisals of these experiences which is deemed most effective in emotion regulation.
Normalization strategies are instrumental for the endeavour as they modulate emotions, behaviours, and underlying psychobiological responses[xxxvi]. It helps individuals to see that they are not alone in experiencing certain feelings or thoughts, and this can enhance feelings of psychological safety, self-esteem, facilitate improved coping, and reduce stigmatisation rep. self-judgements that are expressed via moral cognitions and moral emotions. Normalisation can also be seen as an active element within group CBT as self-disclosing people can relate to one another within the group and see that other people experience similar problems[xxxvii]. Normalizing interventions are increasingly used in severe mental diseases and can have a relevant role in achieving adequate clinical outcomes[xxxviii].
This should be done in conjunction with making the experiences outside of our conscious awareness ‘conscious’ and to transform deducible information from incommunicable to communicable by creating a library of mapping affects to emotional words to label and express emotions which reduces their intensity[xxxix].
Affect labelling is a critical emotion regulation strategy that involves the anticipation, perception and acknowledgement of feelings based on interoception and reflection in order to label the unspecific affect patterns and categorize them with verbal descriptions[xl] This strategy is proven to activate the rvlPFC, reducing the neuronal activity of the amygdala[xli] and a rich emotional vocabulary helps to communicate emotions e.g., by giving emotional context and acknowledge emotions of others in social processes. Another proven ER strategy that activates the rvlPFC is cognitive reappraisal[xlii] or reframing by reflectively challenging current patterns of emotions and cognitions that may be maladaptive.
One can argue that normalization as described can be achieved within a peer-group in the family system to comply with the family NDA. However, this is counterproductive as it keeps everyone in an ‘Echo Chamber’, which is characterized by reinforcing feedback loops of the jointly acquired belief-bubbles via the confirmation bias and the constant representation of the same triggering stimuli. The exit from these detrimental feed-loops is normalisation in the context of a peer-group with constituents from external family members who are impartial and active listeners. This way, normalizing interventions change the emotional states of individuals which occur through the modulation of pathways related to fear perception such as the amygdala by deliberately involving the prefrontal cortex which is at the core of System II. In turn, System I is relieved by the activation of the para-sympathetic nervous system and System II can function largely uninhibited.
Normalization presupposes that all individuals speak up resp. learn to speak up which itself is a dilemma because it would help affected family members to process the experience and finally speak up in the family as responsible and accountable shareholder. But when everyone is doing it, it becomes ‘normal’, a first step to feeling safe.
This allows to share experiences with the peer-group and the conscious and productive processing of the experiences and a major contribution to creating higher EQ levels and widens the mental space for making conscious choices, i.e., become less reactive to adverse stimuli associated with relational patterns generated by family dynamics.
Not speaking up and not normalizing the experience is conducive to reactivity and creates a negative feed-back loop of shame and guilt and emotion suppression because of the desire to perform as responsible and accountable shareholder resp. to accumulate the emotional injuries that were inflicted by attempts to speak up with negative implications for the persons’ mental and physical well-being. But if everyone speaks up, it become abnormal to be silent. Peer pressure is on, but in a good way!
Normalizing the experiences would empower the person in general but also to perform as responsible and accountable shareholder for the greater good.
Normalization is essential as it supports the solution of moral dilemmas in social decision-making because it leads to utilitarian preferences and choices. This is foundational to solve the various moral dilemmas in a business family context. The normalization process must take place in a guided and psychological safe environment[xliii] with privacy guaranteed as it requires risk taking by the individual to gradually trust and opening up in a peer-group setting.
Trust can be acquired by revealing information about the SELF to others and learning from the feed-back of others to normalize experiences. To enhance the perception of the individual’s perception on others we can use a communication model called the JOHARI WINDOW MODEL[xliv]:
Peers initially meet in the upper left quadrant as problems, attitudes, behaviours, emotions etc. are familiar. Through ‘Feedback Socialisation’ over many iterations, the individuals of the group expand the area beyond its borders across all other quadrants, especially the quadrant at the lower right position: open communication reveals hidden patterns and create the utmost awareness levels needed to solve all dilemmas and perform as responsible and accountable shareholder which fosters the potential for a successful candidacy as successor.
The same template can be applied to parts integration which is an assisted interoception strategy widely used in NLP.
The participants will create more contextual awareness by self-and-other reflection and create a better understanding of how thoughts, emotions and contexts influence their own behaviour and the behaviour of others and thereby raising each other’s frequencies.
Thus, the Johari Window process is conducive to counteract linear, hierarchical, and dichotomous thinking as it fosters wholistic and complex thinking. A major advantage in solving social dilemmas. It is non-judgemental and multi-dimensional, multi-layered, taking into account reinforcing and diminishing feed-back loops with cognitive and emotional empathy, compassion and the understanding of other people’s intend (ToM), able to take the perceptual position of other people.
Wholistic thinking fosters better and richer awareness levels that create a better understanding, enriching the mental model of the world of the individual and eventually of the entire social system.
Psycho-biological implications of staying passive
The feeling of silent judging and open judging in an Echo-Chamber which inhibits communication with those who should be communicated with, leads to a subjective reality based on assumptions and false beliefs which is a fertile ground for hidden and open conflicts. This is to be seen conjunction with the fear of being judged, again a fact that leads to inauthentic behaviors. The resulting incongruency is often outside of conscious awareness and the feeling of lack of agency bears the danger of victimization. All this leads to a high emotional load resp. stress load.
So, the focus is socio-emotional stress which is specifically a System I activity that can be mediated by System II. Normally, stress is a short-term response to internal or external stimuli which helps us to overcome obstacles and it temporarily disrupts our homeostasis (i.e. the way our body remains on an even keel). It originates in the FEAR CENTRE (Amygdala)[xlv] as a response to signals we perceive as threat to our autonomy. Stress responses are driven by actual, historical respectively imagined social processes that leave us with unresolved conflicts or, when we are emotionally constipated and deny ourselves the completion of emotional cycles. Other socio-emotional stressor-examples are the fear of social rejection and social isolation or the fear of being judged by others when we appear to be vulnerable. Other typical stressors are the fear of failure and the fear of losing control! [xlvi]
In general, stress increases behavioral biases, in particular the self-protection bias. Stress reduces our capacity for patience, narrows our mind, reduces empathy and our ability to trust. This is a downregulation of the social engagement system.
Stress responses related to cognitive dissonant states lead to elevated and prolonged cortisol levels (among other neuropeptides like adrenaline) that are toxic. This cocktail of chemicals is wreaking havoc on the mind and body of an individual as our cells are turning experiences into biology on a cellular level[xlvii].
Chronically high stress levels lead to the collapse of the inner-self and permanent states of social anxiety, a hapless feeling of being out of control creating excessive fears, anxiety, worry, panic, dread, terror, burnout and depression, driven by a pathological sense of loss of control.
Interpersonal tensions and tension releases that are resulting in toxic, social stress accentuates expression of pro-and anti-inflammatory signaling molecules fostering inflammation-sensitive diseases, including atherosclerosis. Stress, especially when not transient, elicits adaptive and maladaptive changes in gene expression[xlviii] (epigenics) that are passed on to future generations (transgenerational epigenetics)[xlix]. It inhibits regenerative processes, and it impairs the immune system, which increases the risk of illnesses. High body tension changes the posture sub-optimally, which can affect joints. Elevated heartrates and increased blood-pressure puts the cardio-vascular system under strain. Heart diseases, heart attacks, strokes, inflammations, cancer and auto-immune diseases become more likely to occur. Without intervention, this negative feed-back loop of stress morphs into a destructive downward spiral, likely to end in severe illnesses and pre-mature death.
PTSD has been shown to grow the neuronal mass of the amygdala which makes individuals even more susceptible to stressors, even if the stimuli are perceived as minor stressors by neurotypical individuals.
Normalization helps to reduce stress levels and to regain a sense of agency that is vital for all social situations and for active, responsible and accountable shareholders that want to initiate change in corporate governance for more efficiency.
Conclusion
It is important to look at family wealth wholistically, considering individual-and-social wellbeing as well as financial aspects of the family business which is inextricably linked to good corporate governance of which shareholders are an integral part even if they have elected a supervisory board.
Responsible shareholders not only have the right but the duty to ask questions, voice their views and concerns regarding the business and exercise their rights to exonerate the management board and the supervisory board. This is essential for accountability as custodians for the next generations!
Oppression of this desire for agency for the purpose of responsibility and accountability ignores good governance principals and reduces the well-being of the family on socio-emotional level. Accepting this state of being is incongruent with the goal of multigenerational family legacy.
In absence of the top brass to open up and inviting shareholders’ participation in the corporate governance, family members need to reduce stress levels to create psychological freedom degrees i.e., to overcome learned helplessness and social dilemmas in their decision-making to become responsible, accountable shareholders and thus, worthy successors of the business.
To break Omertà is a chance to assess habits and traditions, to overcome the system drag and stimulate evolution. Normalization with external peers for ‘peer-development’ is an effective way to counteract learned helplessness and other limiting beliefs that reduce psychological freedom degrees fostering deontological choices while inhibiting utilitarian decisions.
Literature
[1] Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[1] Sharpe, W. F. (1966). “Mutual Fund Performance”. Journal of Business. 39 (S1): 119–138
[1] Kleve Heiko et. al. eds, Sociology of the Business Family, Springer, 2023
[1] Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[1] Jun, Heesoon, Social Justice, Multicultural Counselling, and Practice, 3rd ed, Springer, 2024
[1] Wojciechwski, Bartosz, W., Quantum Probability Theory, Psychology and Law, Routledge, 2024
[1] Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[1] Bartosz W., Wojciechowski, Quantum Probability Theory, Psychology and Law, Routledge, 2024
[1] Jun, Heesoon, Social Justice, Multicultural Counselling, and Practice, 3rd ed, Springer, 2024
[1] Tsao, Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[1] Ibanez Augustin et.al. eds, Neuroscience and social science, chapter: Moral Cognitions and Moral Emotions, Springer, 2017
[1] Ibanez Augustin et.al. eds, Neuroscience and social science, chapter: Moral Cognitions and Moral Emotions, Springer, 2017
[1] Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[1] Ibanez Augustin et.al. eds, Neuroscience and social science, chapter: Moral Cognitions and Moral Emotions, Springer, 2017
[1] Ibanez Augustin et.al. eds, Neuroscience and social science, chapter: Moral Cognitions and Moral Emotions, Springer, 2017
[1] Seligman, Martin E.P. et.al., Learned Helplessness: Theory and Evidence, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976
[1] Seligman, Martin E.P. et.al., Learned Helplessness: Theory and Evidence, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976
[1] Seligman, Martin E.P. et.al., Learned Helplessness at Fifty: Insights From Neuroscience, American Psychological Association, 2016
[1] Seligman, Martin E.P. et.al., Learned Helplessness: Theory and Evidence, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976
[1] Clance, P. R., & Imes S. A. , he imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247. , 1978
[1] Dweck, Carol Sorich, Stanford University, 2015
[1] Dweck, Carol Sorich, Stanford University, 2015
[1] Arnold Thersa et. al: Within a mesh of expectations: Dealing with Dilemmas in business families using systemic tools from family coaching
[1] Arnold Thersa et. al: Within a mesh of expectations: Dealing with Dilemmas in business families using systemic tools from family coaching
[1] Greene, JD Nystrom LE, Engell AD, Darley JM, Cohen JD, The neural basis of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgement. Neuron. 2004:44
[1] Kahneman Daniel, Thinking Fast and Slow, 2011
[1] Kahneman Daniel, Thinking Fast and Slow, 2011
[1] Manfrinati Andrea et.al., Moral dilemmas and moral principles: When emotion and cognition unite, Cognition & Emotion, vol. 27, issue 7, 2013
[1] Wojciechwski, Bartosz, W., Quantum Probability Theory, Psychology and Law, Routledge, 2024
[1] Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[1] Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[1] Arnold Thersa et. al: Within a mesh of expectations: Dealing with Dilemmas in business families using systemic tools from family coaching
[1] The Neuroscience of Team Collaboration During Design Thinking Event in Naturalistic Settings, Naama Mayseless et.al., in Design Thinking Research, Investigating Design Team Performance, Christoph Meinel et.al., Springer, 2020
[1] Kingdon DG, Turkington D. Psychoeducation and normalization. In: Cognitive therapy of schizophrenia. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2005. p. 83–95.
[1] Danko D. Georgiev, Quantum Information and Consciousness, CRC Press, 2019
[1] Bersani, F. S., & Delle Chiaie, R. (2021). The END method: Normalization. In M. Biondi, M. Pasquini, & L. Tarsitani (Eds.), Empathy, normalization and de-escalation: Management of the agitated patient in emergency and critical situations (pp. 57–64). Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
[1] Dudley Robert et.al., Techniques in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy: Using Normalising in Schizophrenia, Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologfoeining, Psykologi, 2007
[1] Bersani, F. S., & Delle Chiaie, R. (2021). The END method: Normalization. In M. Biondi, M. Pasquini, & L. Tarsitani (Eds.), Empathy, normalization and de-escalation: Management of the agitated patient in emergency and critical situations (pp. 57–64). Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
[1] Torre, J.B., Liebermann, M.D, Putting feelings into words: Affect labelling as implicit emotion regulation. Emotion Review, Vol 10, No 2, pp 116-124, 2018
[1] How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain, Lisa Feldmann Barrett, Pan, 2016
[1] Modulating the Social and Affective Brain with Transcranial Stimulation Techniques, Gabriel Rego et.al., in Social and Affective Neuroscience, Paulo Sergio Boggio et.al., Springer, 2023
[1] Modulating the Social and Affective Brain with Transcranial Stimulation Techniques, Gabriel Rego et.al., in Social and Affective Neuroscience, Paulo Sergio Boggio et.al., Springer, 2023
[1] Edmonson, Amy et.al., Psychological Safety Comes of Age: Observed Themes in an Established Literature
[1] Luft, J.; Ingham, H. (1955). “The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness”. Proceedings of the Western Training Laboratory in Group Development.
[1] Salposky, M. Robert, Behave, Penguin Random House, 2017
[1] von Eynern, Dominik, Sommavilla, Doris, Stonewalling, Family Hippocampus, 2021
[1]Lipton Bruce H., The Biology of Belief, Hay House, 2015
[1] Sabban L. Esther et. al., Stress-triggered activation of gene expression in cat who can be impartial listelaminergic systems: dynamics of transcriptional events, Trends in Neuroscience, 2001
[1] Lipton Bruce H., The Biology of Belief, Hay House, 2015
[i] Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[ii] Sharpe, W. F. (1966). “Mutual Fund Performance”. Journal of Business. 39 (S1): 119–138
[iii] Kleve Heiko et. al. eds, Sociology of the Business Family, Springer, 2023
[iv] Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[v] Jun, Heesoon, Social Justice, Multicultural Counselling, and Practice, 3rd ed, Springer, 2024
[vi] Wojciechwski, Bartosz, W., Quantum Probability Theory, Psychology and Law, Routledge, 2024
[vii] Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[viii] Bartosz W., Wojciechowski, Quantum Probability Theory, Psychology and Law, Routledge, 2024
[ix] Jun, Heesoon, Social Justice, Multicultural Counselling, and Practice, 3rd ed, Springer, 2024
[x] Tsao, Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[xi] Ibanez Augustin et.al. eds, Neuroscience and social science, chapter: Moral Cognitions and Moral Emotions, Springer, 2017
[xii] Ibanez Augustin et.al. eds, Neuroscience and social science, chapter: Moral Cognitions and Moral Emotions, Springer, 2017
[xiii] Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[xiv] Ibanez Augustin et.al. eds, Neuroscience and social science, chapter: Moral Cognitions and Moral Emotions, Springer, 2017
[xv] Ibanez Augustin et.al. eds, Neuroscience and social science, chapter: Moral Cognitions and Moral Emotions, Springer, 2017
[xvi] Seligman, Martin E.P. et.al., Learned Helplessness: Theory and Evidence, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976
[xvii] Seligman, Martin E.P. et.al., Learned Helplessness: Theory and Evidence, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976
[xviii] Seligman, Martin E.P. et.al., Learned Helplessness at Fifty: Insights From Neuroscience, American Psychological Association, 2016
[xix] Seligman, Martin E.P. et.al., Learned Helplessness: Theory and Evidence, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976
[xx] Clance, P. R., & Imes S. A. , he imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247. , 1978
[xxi] Dweck, Carol Sorich, Stanford University, 2015
[xxii] Dweck, Carol Sorich, Stanford University, 2015
[xxiii] Arnold Thersa et. al: Within a mesh of expectations: Dealing with Dilemmas in business families using systemic tools from family coaching
[xxiv] Arnold Thersa et. al: Within a mesh of expectations: Dealing with Dilemmas in business families using systemic tools from family coaching
[xxv] Greene, JD Nystrom LE, Engell AD, Darley JM, Cohen JD, The neural basis of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgement. Neuron. 2004:44
[xxvi] Kahneman Daniel, Thinking Fast and Slow, 2011
[xxvii] Kahneman Daniel, Thinking Fast and Slow, 2011
[xxviii] Manfrinati Andrea et.al., Moral dilemmas and moral principles: When emotion and cognition unite, Cognition & Emotion, vol. 27, issue 7, 2013
[xxix] Wojciechwski, Bartosz, W., Quantum Probability Theory, Psychology and Law, Routledge, 2024
[xxx] Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[xxxi] Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
[xxxii] Arnold Thersa et. al: Within a mesh of expectations: Dealing with Dilemmas in business families using systemic tools from family coaching
[xxxiii] The Neuroscience of Team Collaboration During Design Thinking Event in Naturalistic Settings, Naama Mayseless et.al., in Design Thinking Research, Investigating Design Team Performance, Christoph Meinel et.al., Springer, 2020
[xxxiv] Kingdon DG, Turkington D. Psychoeducation and normalization. In: Cognitive therapy of schizophrenia. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2005. p. 83–95.
[xxxv] Danko D. Georgiev, Quantum Information and Consciousness, CRC Press, 2019
[xxxvi] Bersani, F. S., & Delle Chiaie, R. (2021). The END method: Normalization. In M. Biondi, M. Pasquini, & L. Tarsitani (Eds.), Empathy, normalization and de-escalation: Management of the agitated patient in emergency and critical situations (pp. 57–64). Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
[xxxvii] Dudley Robert et.al., Techniques in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy: Using Normalising in Schizophrenia, Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologfoeining, Psykologi, 2007
[xxxviii] Bersani, F. S., & Delle Chiaie, R. (2021). The END method: Normalization. In M. Biondi, M. Pasquini, & L. Tarsitani (Eds.), Empathy, normalization and de-escalation: Management of the agitated patient in emergency and critical situations (pp. 57–64). Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
[xxxix] Torre, J.B., Liebermann, M.D, Putting feelings into words: Affect labelling as implicit emotion regulation. Emotion Review, Vol 10, No 2, pp 116-124, 2018
[xl] How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain, Lisa Feldmann Barrett, Pan, 2016
[xli] Modulating the Social and Affective Brain with Transcranial Stimulation Techniques, Gabriel Rego et.al., in Social and Affective Neuroscience, Paulo Sergio Boggio et.al., Springer, 2023
[xlii] Modulating the Social and Affective Brain with Transcranial Stimulation Techniques, Gabriel Rego et.al., in Social and Affective Neuroscience, Paulo Sergio Boggio et.al., Springer, 2023
[xliii] Edmonson, Amy et.al., Psychological Safety Comes of Age: Observed Themes in an Established Literature
[xliv] Luft, J.; Ingham, H. (1955). “The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness”. Proceedings of the Western Training Laboratory in Group Development.
[xlv] Salposky, M. Robert, Behave, Penguin Random House, 2017
[xlvi] von Eynern, Dominik, Sommavilla, Doris, Stonewalling, Family Hippocampus, 2021
[xlvii]Lipton Bruce H., The Biology of Belief, Hay House, 2015
[xlviii] Sabban L. Esther et. al., Stress-triggered activation of gene expression in cat who can be impartial listelaminergic systems: dynamics of transcriptional events, Trends in Neuroscience, 2001
[xlix] Lipton Bruce H., The Biology of Belief, Hay House, 2015
Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
Sharpe, W. F. (1966). “Mutual Fund Performance”. Journal of Business. 39 (S1): 119–138
Kleve Heiko et. al. eds, Sociology of the Business Family, Springer, 2023
Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
Jun, Heesoon, Social Justice, Multicultural Counselling, and Practice, 3rd ed, Springer, 2024
Wojciechwski, Bartosz, W., Quantum Probability Theory, Psychology and Law, Routledge, 2024
Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
Bartosz W., Wojciechowski, Quantum Probability Theory, Psychology and Law, Routledge, 2024
Jun, Heesoon, Social Justice, Multicultural Counselling, and Practice, 3rd ed, Springer, 2024
Tsao, Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
Ibanez Augustin et.al. eds, Neuroscience and social science, chapter: Moral Cognitions and Moral Emotions, Springer, 2017
Ibanez Augustin et.al. eds, Neuroscience and social science, chapter: Moral Cognitions and Moral Emotions, Springer, 2017
Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
Ibanez Augustin et.al. eds, Neuroscience and social science, chapter: Moral Cognitions and Moral Emotions, Springer, 2017
Ibanez Augustin et.al. eds, Neuroscience and social science, chapter: Moral Cognitions and Moral Emotions, Springer, 2017
Seligman, Martin E.P. et.al., Learned Helplessness: Theory and Evidence, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976
Seligman, Martin E.P. et.al., Learned Helplessness: Theory and Evidence, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976
Seligman, Martin E.P. et.al., Learned Helplessness at Fifty: Insights From Neuroscience, American Psychological Association, 2016
Seligman, Martin E.P. et.al., Learned Helplessness: Theory and Evidence, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976
Clance, P. R., & Imes S. A. , he imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247. , 1978
Dweck, Carol Sorich, Stanford University, 2015
Dweck, Carol Sorich, Stanford University, 2015
Arnold Thersa et. al: Within a mesh of expectations: Dealing with Dilemmas in business families using systemic tools from family coaching
Arnold Thersa et. al: Within a mesh of expectations: Dealing with Dilemmas in business families using systemic tools from family coaching
Greene, JD Nystrom LE, Engell AD, Darley JM, Cohen JD, The neural basis of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgement. Neuron. 2004:44
Kahneman Daniel, Thinking Fast and Slow, 2011
Kahneman Daniel, Thinking Fast and Slow, 2011
Manfrinati Andrea et.al., Moral dilemmas and moral principles: When emotion and cognition unite, Cognition & Emotion, vol. 27, issue 7, 2013
Wojciechwski, Bartosz, W., Quantum Probability Theory, Psychology and Law, Routledge, 2024
Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
Tsao Chavalit Frederick et.al., Quantum Leadership, Stanford Business Books, 2019
Arnold Thersa et. al: Within a mesh of expectations: Dealing with Dilemmas in business families using systemic tools from family coaching
The Neuroscience of Team Collaboration During Design Thinking Event in Naturalistic Settings, Naama Mayseless et.al., in Design Thinking Research, Investigating Design Team Performance, Christoph Meinel et.al., Springer, 2020
Kingdon DG, Turkington D. Psychoeducation and normalization. In: Cognitive therapy of schizophrenia. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2005. p. 83–95.
Danko D. Georgiev, Quantum Information and Consciousness, CRC Press, 2019
Bersani, F. S., & Delle Chiaie, R. (2021). The END method: Normalization. In M. Biondi, M. Pasquini, & L. Tarsitani (Eds.), Empathy, normalization and de-escalation: Management of the agitated patient in emergency and critical situations (pp. 57–64). Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Dudley Robert et.al., Techniques in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy: Using Normalising in Schizophrenia, Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologfoeining, Psykologi, 2007
Bersani, F. S., & Delle Chiaie, R. (2021). The END method: Normalization. In M. Biondi, M. Pasquini, & L. Tarsitani (Eds.), Empathy, normalization and de-escalation: Management of the agitated patient in emergency and critical situations (pp. 57–64). Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Torre, J.B., Liebermann, M.D, Putting feelings into words: Affect labelling as implicit emotion regulation. Emotion Review, Vol 10, No 2, pp 116-124, 2018
How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain, Lisa Feldmann Barrett, Pan, 2016
Modulating the Social and Affective Brain with Transcranial Stimulation Techniques, Gabriel Rego et.al., in Social and Affective Neuroscience, Paulo Sergio Boggio et.al., Springer, 2023
Modulating the Social and Affective Brain with Transcranial Stimulation Techniques, Gabriel Rego et.al., in Social and Affective Neuroscience, Paulo Sergio Boggio et.al., Springer, 2023
Edmonson, Amy et.al., Psychological Safety Comes of Age: Observed Themes in an Established Literature
Luft, J.; Ingham, H. (1955). “The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness”. Proceedings of the Western Training Laboratory in Group Development.
Salposky, M. Robert, Behave, Penguin Random House, 2017
von Eynern, Dominik, Sommavilla, Doris, Stonewalling, Family Hippocampus, 2021
Lipton Bruce H., The Biology of Belief, Hay House, 2015
Sabban L. Esther et. al., Stress-triggered activation of gene expression in cat who can be impartial listelaminergic systems: dynamics of transcriptional events, Trends in Neuroscience, 2001
Lipton Bruce H., The Biology of Belief, Hay House, 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iDisclaimer: While we have made every attempt to ensure that the information contained in this concept paper has been obtained from reliable sources, Family Hippocampus is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. All information in this site is provided “as is”, with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event will Family Hippocampus, its related partnerships or corporations, or the partners, agents or employees thereof be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the information in this in this concept paper or for any consequential, special, or similar damages, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.