Our approach & your benefits



Through the training you gain: 


  • diagnostic acuity for action-guiding and possibly problem-creating patterns in companies
  • A wealth of perspectives for the development of creative, potentially pattern-breaking concepts for people development, organization development, change and leadership
  • intellectual autonomy from the 'normative power of the factual' ("factual constraints", "holy cows", "processes and KPIs", "unwritten rules") and a high degree of potential for innovation in the L&D sector.
  • Crisis-proof USP's through meta-competencies, which are especially in demand in difficult transitional periods.



Beyond that you win:


  • Speed of learning: through the experience of getting to grips with a largely unfamiliar, complex subject area in a relatively short time (in just a few months) - a skill that you can apply analogously to other areas
  • Future competence: by experiencing a mix of methods with which you can expand the skillset of people at the pace of change dynamics (technological development, market requirements, change in the company) - and not only in the form of a rough overview, but also in a depth that makes them capable of providing information and acting. By passing on this competence, you contribute to maintaining the individual employability and competitiveness of your company.
  • Transfer competence: Because in your final project you can transfer the learning model experienced in the course to your field of activity. In your final project (project or concept description), you can create a scientifically sound and practice-oriented white paper for your department or your customers, which will help you to position your approach.
  • Cases and scenarios: using many practical examples from industry.


what does science contribute to the practice of Learning and Development?

What the L&D sector can learn from science: 


  • Acting scientifically implies an EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: experiment, experiment, experiment - and gain data from your experiments (instead of, for example, using seminar catalogue monocultures to lump all the different brains together and (dis-)"qualify" people according to the model of the old school system.
  • Science is based on EVIDENCE (which usually does not fit in with our way of thinking): Check the fit of your hypotheses (e.g. about the promotion of performance, value creation, agility, self-organization skills, etc.). iteratively using the data from your experiments and try people development sprints as an alternative to the "strategy plans" from the green table.
  • Science is institutionalized doubt: doubt all opinions - especially those of the majority, the opinion leaders and, above all, your own. Remember that good advisors will unsettle you rather than 'in-sure' you - otherwise they would be insurance agents!
  • Science is based on sado-masochistic quality assurance practices: internalize the peer review process that every scientific publication goes through! Invite others to tear apart your own ideas, project plans, strategies, until you have made something much better and more feasible from the rubble of your original idea.
  • Science advances - from funeral to funeral (Max Planck): Always be aware that the paradigms that give you orientation today may have crumbled to dust tomorrow due to new data and circumstances. So, drop your tools!
  • Scientific discoveries are often based on the observation of black swans: only those who are able to perceive and think "out of the box" can make use of the coincidences that occur during experimentation (like the mouldy Petri dish that led to the discovery of penicillin) and develop new ideas (like Einstein's theory of relativity, which he would not have come up with without his familiarity with philosophy). Therefore, in addition to the sense of reality, develop the sense of possibility and regularly leave your frame of reference, even if it is uncomfortable. 



Perhaps you will agree with me that much of the meta-competencies that we already need today - and probably even more tomorrow - in companies can be found in the picture of science (which I have drawn). Even if this is the case, the insight alone is of little use - unless it is the first step towards a decision: 

How would it be to experience this SCIENCE CULTURE intensively? So intensely that it might transform some aspects of your own professional work?

WHY systemic neuropsychology?

"[...] and the kind of neurobiology that can act as a partner here - let this be said here in anticipation - is non-reductionist systemic neurobiology; i.e. a purely molecular neurobiology must be excluded as a dialogue partner from the outset, since it is probably not possible to fathom the "secrets of the soul" by looking at GABA and acetylcholine molecules alone".


Prof. Dr. Dr. Hinderk M. Emrich


A non-reductionist approach has proven to be particularly effective in practice transfer. After all, real life is complex and the attempt to explain leadership or personal development with a few neurotransmitters and functional centres in the brain proves to be ridiculously under-complex. This is why we are pursuing systemic neuropsychology in this training. This means: we look at all three systems in which learning and development processes take place and that  enable or prevent sustainable learning effects:

  • the biological system: in particular neurobiology, which, e.g., answers the  question which factors promote of reduce the efficiency of neuroplasticity

  • the psychological system: here especially from the perspective of business psychology. By relating the psychological level back to the biological level, new perspectives on psychological constructs such as motivation (and demotivation), stress, self-efficacy, mindfulness, but also on new concepts such as agility, the ability to organise oneself, decision-making under uncertainty, etc., are created.

  • the social system: here especially the social system in the company as a biotope with its own laws. Here, too, the reference to the psychological and biological level serves as a source of impulses for questions relevant to practice: What effects does the organisational structure (e.g. hierarchy, matrix, cell structure, holocracy) have on psychology and biology - i.e. on motivation and health? Which psychological prerequisites do self-organized work processes or agile structures have and how can the necessary neuronal changes be made possible (if this seems reasonable in a concrete case)?


For each practical topic we keep all three systems present and avoid overestimating one perspective. This protects us from many an obvious stupidity.


For when current approaches and their "evangelists" reach their limits, when they create hypes that fail the practical test, this is usually based on the reduction to only one of the three systems.

The consequences of this reduction can be: 


  • naive biologism: brain research that explains the world and finally provides "scientifically proven" instructions for "correct" leadership, "successful" motivation, etc. What emerges from this are pseudo-evident recipes for action, which misuse science as an effective advertising  for their own generalizations about what is good or bad and what is true or false (Aristotelian metaphysics). The results are at least droll, sometimes annoying or even harmful: There are colleagues who, by selectively paying attention to TV brain researchers, fall into the self-affirmation trap: "At last brain research says what I have always believed to be true anyway! On the other hand, there are lots of "success trainers" whose complete disinterest in the true science behind the marketable brain talk allows them to misrepresent the brain as a trivial machine with "motivation buttons" and "change levers" you can easily use once you have acquired some simple knowledge about the brain. And finally, there are the "TV brain researchers" themselves, who are often much better known to the general public than to experts in the field. Those folks, most of which have not seen a company from the inside, do not fail to amuse experienced managers by their attempt  to explain how leadership or corporate learning really works - based on science.

  • "Psycho stuff":  It is largely a matter of consensus that our thoughts and emotions influence our actions and should, therefore,  beon the agenda in soft skills, change or leadership seminars . Nevertheless, a certain psycho-allergy prevails among many participants. In my estimation, this aversion is, at least partly, a healthy intuition - and cannot be exhaustively justified by the nerdness of teccies in the subclinical autism spectrum or the defence mechanisms of narcissistic managers against the threat of losing the facade. Rather, the one-sided focus on the psychological dimension neglects  the biological history (experience-dependent neuroplasticity) and then - somewhat foolhardy - demands a new way of thinking. However, those who have a long history of external control that has inscribed corresponding pathways into the synaptic architecture of their brain (biology) will not suddenly develop an "agile mindset" including a "willingness to change" through "rethinking". What is needed here are not so much "seminars" than concrete changes in work design, in management structure and in the corporate culture that create long-term experience and, thus, have  a long-term effect on neuroplasticity. Moreover, anyone who  dares to try something new will fail if he does not ensure that his plans fit in with the organisational structures, hierarchies, sensitivities etc. (social system). Therefore, there is a huge market for consultants who are able to contextualize the mostly psychology-based concepts of HR departments by linking them downstream to their biological foundations and upstream to their compatibility with the social systems within the company.

  • System fetishism: systems theory has often been criticized for not considering the individual  human being with his of her biology and psychology, while exclusively focussing on communication processes. Many times, this allegation is wrong. On the consulting market, however, representatives of the systems approach have establised an influential antipsychological movement. Representatives of this movement even consider concepts like "mindset", "inner attitude",  "motivation" and other constructs that assign responsibility for change to individuals to be downright inhuman. What they consider important,  is, rather, to replace the outdated cultural technique of management with more adequate forms of organization. This one-sided focus on the social system ignores that it is always individual people with their biographical psychology and biology that make changes possible or, for example, prevent them due to a lack of learned autonomy or personal maturity.


Thus, in the course of the training, we practise making each other aware of the inevitable omissions that arise when thinking. We will keep  the observer-dependence of descriptions and evaluations in mind. Jumping between systems and discovering interactions between company, psyche and body trains  the agility of our thinking. Above all, you will practise looking at the requirements and development needs in organisations from a multi-perspective, linking them with scientific-empirical evidence and humanities models and applying the resulting interpretations and plans for action to practice in a critically constructive dialogue.