Psychological
Private Office

Dealing with Personal Concerns – An Appraisal of the Status Quo

Dealing with strain rarely begins with a conscious decision. Under sustained pressure, the inner system has already begun to adapt. That is part of normality. Such adaptations have the person's well-being in view, not the company's. Through this conflict of aims, the effect of the strain can become apparent: inner priorities have shifted, resources have been reallocated.

The obvious next step is to try to resolve the concern alone at first, and sometimes this succeeds. This path is discreet: it protects one's outward image, and the concern remains hidden from any outside gaze. Often, however, a perspective from outside is missing, and without it thoughts sometimes go round in circles instead of moving forward. Which path offers itself after that depends on the particular situation.

A personal friend offers loyalty and often long-standing familiarity. Yet a friend is rarely an expert, and some things are hard to confide in a friend precisely because one will meet them again. Friendships can also change, while what has once been said remains in the world. The family often already carries a great deal and reaches the limit of what it can absorb. And family loyalties, too, can shift over time.

One's own structure of responsibility also offers itself. It is loyal and understands the context. Yet every word a decision-maker says there is also read strategically, and what is meant personally has business consequences, even when everyone involved sincerely tries to keep the two apart. In addition, the role of a decision-maker carries an outward image that is part of their position, and some concerns are difficult to reconcile with that image.

Specialists who are discreetly recommended within one's own circles have expertise that the other paths lack. What basic assumptions and what view of human nature underlie such a specialist's work would need to be asked and weighed against one's own situation: whether they follow a school and, if so, which one, and whether reactions to strain are understood there as deviation or as adaptation. It should likewise be clarified whether the conversations are held consequence-free or embedded in a way of working that relies on documentation, whether because of legal requirements or because many people are seen in parallel. Finally, one should ask whether the specialist regards themselves as loyal or as neutral towards the person they are speaking with.

On Balance

Each of these paths is an honest attempt to resolve a concern first with what is at hand. Of these, only the external specialists bring expertise. Yet they are often called in only late, although they could achieve the most early on. What tips the balance is that the step towards them is more than one more conversation: it concedes that what is at hand is not enough, and it exposes the concern to a gaze that carries professional weight. Those accustomed to judging and deciding often associate this step with the apprehension of now being judged themselves.

This apprehension loses weight when the criteria by which a specialist appraises are open to inspection in advance and, by their nature, credibly rule out value judgements. In addition, there is the question of whether what is said stays within the conversation: are freedom from consequences and discretion merely promised, or is the structure that ensures them open to public inspection and therefore verifiable?

A Psychological Private Office is also external expertise, but in institutional and structured form. Its relationship with the person it speaks with is one of loyalty, rooted in the mandate and not in personal relationships that can change. Examining the remaining criteria is easier here, because the way of working is disclosed as part of the structure: the professional basis is set out on the page “The Science of Normality”, the manner of appraisal in the chapter “The Conversation”, and freedom from consequences, Zero Data Retention and discretion in the chapters “The Space” and “The Architecture”.

A mandate can be granted for a specific occasion or on a permanent basis. A permanent mandate makes the expert perspective accessible through short channels. Appraisal then takes place continuously, including of what is only beginning to emerge, so that corrections are made promptly and while operations continue, and more options remain open. At times, it is enough simply to know that the expert perspective can be called upon at any time.