Yes and No.When I worked as a manager in the US, I (unlike the rest of the organization) treated my employees with respect and care.
Instead of making an employee responsible for an error, we investigated together the root cause and remedied that.That way the employee could not make that mistake again, but also his/her successor did not. Because they knew that I did not blame anyone, they dared to speak open and honest about problems, which made it possible to discover and solve the problems again. In the rest of the organization, the employees wiped out mistakes under the carpet, causing the problems to emerge elsewhere.
By trusting and looking for improvements, we had within 4 months something that had to be done every week (and actually every day) so improved that instead of 40 hours per week, now lasted 10 minutes a day with also a much better quality.
My departments walked as a train and my staff were very dedicated, proud and loyal.Because we picked up the problems at the source time and time again, there were fewer recurring problems. The new problems were already solved before other departments would notice anything.
As a result, my colleague executives found that I only had 芒 鈧?艙easy afdelingen芒 鈧?They only had difficult divisions! I almost never had to go to management meetings where operational problems were discussed, because they were almost not in my teams. Because of this I had more time to guide and support my employees.
Then a malfunctioning department was placed under my direction.This department immediately swallowed 80% of my time, nobody knew what to do and they looked at me for guidance. Within 3 to 4 months we had all the backlogs eliminated, the number of errors with more than 90% reduced and the employees whistled again to their work. However, my collega芒 鈧劉 s could not understand that it might have something to do with my management style. They kept seeing me as the ones who had it so easily and didn’t have to work hard.From them I didn’t get any appreciation for my approach, but of my employees all the more.
I assume the idea that the world is a mirror: what you send out will get you back.
I also assume the idea that you shouldn’t be silly: the principle often works (enough), but not always.But that doesn’t mean you have to stop being polite: whether I’m nice or not I decide, not the other. And sometimes, very sometimes, you really have to hit the table with your fist. And then be nice again.
My idea: Be, in principle, nice.You will continue with one kind word than with pages full of unkind words. But where necessary: get out of it (verbally, eh).
Nounou, giving a uniform answer to this would be a gruelling generalization.
I’m pretty sure you, if you’re doing nice to me, will also get you pretty back.
I am also quite sure that that kite does not go for everyone, but I do think that if you do nice, you are considerably more likely to get a nice return.
I remain so optimistic, as it must be against the cliffs.
It is true that if you do nice, chances are that someone is responding nicely to it.It is not a guarantee. As nothing in life, except tax and death.
All karma-like structures are based, like all religious Ideas, on 芒 鈧?虄confirmation Bias芒 鈧劉 or 芒 鈧?虄Preference for Confirmation 芒 鈧劉.
Why do we want such effects to exist?Often by taught behavior. Often because we are ignorant gladly affirming our own 芒 鈧?虄good behavior 芒 鈧劉 want.
Of course, it is true that in general situations it is true that when you treat someone nicely, they also handle you back nicely, but that is entirely dependent on whether you are acting from the same context.
Someone who is leery educated, you will be nice if 芒 鈧?虄no one is nice, so you have a secret Agenda芒 鈧劉 conceive.
Someone who has heard from another that you are an annoying person will respond to you with sarcasm or rejection, because they do not rhyme your behavior with a “trusted Bron芒 鈧劉.
It depends very much on the empathic ability and psychic attitude of someone. Never go out of 芒 鈧?虄fixed values, fixed reaction 芒 鈧劉 in more complex life forms.
Usually it is the one who does well met well.We do well to do good. Already in your common sense and with understanding. I also am not always as nice.
When it points to the sociological phenomenon that one mentions the 芒 鈧?虄Matthew Effect芒 鈧劉: Yes.
If it points to karma: No.
Also from a game-theoretical perspective it can be demonstrated that cooperation pays off in an environment where there are sufficient cooperative players present.
Boob for tat-Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia : This strategy is a confirmation of this phenomenon.
Yes, that is true, but not per individual act or action (that would be really rather naive and rigid thinking), but as an attitude.
If you do well in order to get back properly, then it does not work, because it does well than comes from an unsincere motivation that is not in the core good (cordial), but only out on advantage.Whoever is out on advantage, meets others who are out on advantage.
Not always, but the odds are bigger than if you’re getting cranrious.
Not necessary.But should that be? Sometimes you can enjoy that rush because you’ve been nice. Isn’t that the reward? And should there be a consideration for that?
Here I have my fixed metaphor.
When a cat sits on your lap, what do you do?You strokes this. Why? That cat does not return anything but is well received. And yet you AAI the cat!
The other answers here I can appreciate as well.
In long-term relationships, I believe that balance is important.Sometimes it is nice to be spontaneous, sometimes you have to work on it.