我是 Wen，一個在商業世界打滾了八年的產品經理，卻對「人」和「組織」的問題越來越著迷。

為什麼都能想到同樣的點子，有些團隊就是能執行地更快、更亮眼、更完整？有些卻卡關？

為什麼我已經在做本該是令人興奮的創新產品，卻時常感到卡卡的、很消耗？

這些年我經歷了從服務設計師、UX 研究員，到產品經理，我花了很長的時間學習如何找到對的洞察、說出有說服力的故事。不過經歷了數次組織調整、公司整併的經歷，我開始意識到真正能決定一個創新策略被落地的，往往不是方法論，而是組織如何做決定、組織文化鼓勵怎樣的行為。

這些問題把我帶去了倫敦政經學院 (LSE: The London School of Economics and Political Science)，研讀組織與社會心理學 (MSc Organisational and Social Psychology)。

我過去的職涯怎麼連結到 PM 及組織與社會心理學？

比起單純商業，我更喜歡接觸人、了解人們行為背後複雜的心理機制

就讀台大國企，我在職涯上卻沒有選擇最大眾的商業路線。反而在大三大四的時間，我選修了許多社會科學的課程，我發現從社會學、人類學、心理學到政治學領悟到的觀點，能讓我更深一層地看見管理學背後所牽連的複雜的社會文化結構與心理機制。

當年畢業時正是設計思考、UX 熱潮盛行之時，也在大學期間參與了台大創新設計學院初建時期。也是在那個時候奠定了我以人為本的價值觀，我喜歡了解人們背後的真實需求，無論是針對使用者，還是身邊合作的對象，也因此在第一份工作決定投入當時還很新興的服務設計領域做顧問。

不斷思考什麼才是創造影響力的關鍵，從個人維度到組織維度

當初我從乙方服務設計顧問跳到甲方產品經理，是出於一個好奇：為什麼我們的提案很難落地？客戶不繼續做是因為什麼原因？

我認為 PM 是一個更接近決策核心的角色，能夠把手弄髒，到第一線接觸使用者、推動事情的發生，也帶我看見這個問題的背後的原因。而這個從「局外人變成局內人」的變化，也讓我發現事情比想像中更複雜難解。

近幾年，我把自己定位成「在組織內部做創新的產品經理」，聽起來很 fancy，不過實務上總會遇到各種組織內的矛盾與衝突，就像很多 PM 笑稱的「產品經理常常處理的都是人的問題」。

常有的心裡 OS 會是：為什麼對方不積極投入？為什麼為什麼跨部門的方向總是分散？

這些反覆摩擦也讓我逐漸意識到，產品策略要能完整被執行，跨部門間資源與策略的ㄧ致性也十分關鍵，也讓我反思 — 問題會不會根本不在策略本身，而在組織的流程跟文化？ 那麼會不會我多去了解組織形成與運作的道理，能讓 PM 發揮更大的影響力？

Connecting the dots，用社會科學視角，重新看待實務的商業與產品人經驗

帶著在當顧問時的疑惑、當 PM 時的真實苦惱，現在即將回到唸組織心理學的視角，以更宏觀且有結構的角度去回應那些切身經歷的挑戰。

對我來說，我可能不算是離開原本的領域，而是在過去我擔任各種角色的經驗中，增添一個新的視角，讓我重新解構無論作為服務設計顧問、UX 研究員還是產品經理，該怎麼理解自己的角色、所在的環境和創造影響力的路徑。

為什麼是現在去讀碩士？

在混亂中抽離，空出餘裕去看見更全局的趨勢

很多人問我，為什麼是現在？AI 正在翻轉軟體業，去讀書會不會錯過很多第一現場的關鍵變動？

老實說，我心中也有動搖過，甚至在想我是不是只是想逃離第一線的混沌，幫自己找一個名正言順的 Gap Year？

但我後來想通了，現階段的我比起在混沌與焦慮裡找答案，也許抽離用更宏觀的視角來看，會更有餘裕看清楚 — 未來公司所需要的人才是什麼？未來哪些能力才是真正有長期價值的？

AI 重寫了工作的定義，我也要重新定義自己的理想職位

這個時機點對我還有另一層意義 — 在 AI 正在重新定義人類工作的意義與價值時，也重新探索自己的定位。

這幾年我有好幾個接近做到理想職位的時刻，但這些快樂都並沒有持續。做到理想中好玩又創新的產品、快速迭代且能做各種實驗、和很有能力與想法的團隊一起工作，為什麼我還是感覺卡卡的？

讀完然後呢？

我畢業後會是誰？我還想繼續當 PM 嗎？

老實說，我現在沒有一個很肯定的答案。

現在產品經理的角色正在大幅度地重新被定位，可能連產品開發流程、軟體公司的架構都在經歷典範轉移，我也不知道未來是不是還需要一個明確的 PM 職位。

我喜歡打造產品、為使用者創造價值的時刻，但同時我仍相信人與人之間的協作跟共創是有價值的，也許我仍然會想和團隊一起創造共同願景，一起激盪不同的想法，凝聚團隊共同創造有趣的事物。

為自己的理想組織模式，創造更多真實可行的案例

前進組織心理學的領域不只是讓我學習如何在組織裡攪動改變，也同時能習得更多工具去為社會建立真實的典範。

在與兩位夥伴在去年花四個月的時間舉辦了一場實驗性計劃 — 真實領導 Coaching Program，我們陪伴 10 位在企業、NGO 等領導者一起梳理在實踐真實領導上的各種困難。我們想要為社會帶來的影響力是讓更多人看見真實領導的可行性、創造支持的資源讓這樣的文化能不斷被傳遞跟實踐。 (了解更多真實領導，歡迎看 Sara 寫的這篇)

期待透過紮實的社會科學訓練，加上過往領導者社群中分享的痛點與需求，能夠梳理出推動真實領導的框架流程，讓真實領導是容易被理解、實踐的一種領導方法。

未來，我想分享這趟旅程中所找到的解答

這趟倫敦留學之旅，對我來說更像是一個探險旅程，如同魔女宅急便裡的琪琪，在混亂的現實中打滾，試圖學習新的技能，用全新的姿態重整步伐，在迷惘中體驗過程中的樂趣，享受那些不預期的收穫。

我想透過書寫來分享這趟旅程的所見所聞，有可能會是：

• 第一線前沿的研究理論，怎麼預測未來的組織與工作型態？

• 歐洲創新/真實領導組織的案例，以及他們是如何被孕育跟運作的？

• 組織行為理論對照真實的 PM 經驗，我的反思與下一步行動

• 一個 PM 在 AI 世代重新定位自己的過程

我們相信職場值得進化——不是靠更多的 KPI 或更複雜的管理制度，而是讓「人」能在組織裡真正創造。分享真誠領導、人本管理與組織創新的理論與實踐，如果你也想參與職場進化，歡迎訂閱！

Knock Knock, welcome to the People-First Lab 🧚

We believe the workplace is evolving—not through more KPIs or complex management systems, but by empowering people to truly create. Here, we share theories and practices around Authentic Leadership, Human-centric Management, and Organizational Innovation. If you want to join us in shaping the evolution of work, hit subscribe!

Subscribe now

(English Version Below)

我與真誠領導 (Authentic Leadership) 的交集，源自六年前我第一次擔任團隊領導者。當時我帶領六位成員，那是我職涯中第一個正式的領導職位。那個專案極具開創性、沒有標準答案，不僅需要系統化的方法論，更需要同時與多方利害關係人進行複雜的交涉。

面對高壓，我發現自己無法承受專案的強度。

為了克服這種失控感，我選擇讓自己變成一位極度理性的領導者，將所有精力壓在效率與解決問題上。然而，正因如此，我閹割了自己最擅長的核心優勢——價值驅動、與人連結、以及凝聚團隊。

我變成了一臺高速運轉的機器，盲目追求著不屬於我的目標，我付出了巨大的代價，卻看不到實質的專案改變。最終，經歷了將近半年的身心治療，才得以恢復。

在痛苦中釐清的三個盲點

這段挫敗與真誠領導有何關係？我並非一開始就擁有了解藥，而是在痛苦的自我剖析中，釐清了三個根本問題：

一、主流典範的迷思：傳統觀念認為，領導者必須永遠正確、英明，絕對不能示弱，否則無法樹立權威。這種權力意象型塑了我對「好領導者」的刻板印象，但那根本不是適合我的版本。

二、自我優勢的盲目：我當時並未真正理解自己作為領導者的核心優勢與定位。我的核心價值觀、真正深層在乎的事，以及想要實現的願景，在當時都是模糊的，也從未有人引導我去探究。

三、價值斷裂的後果：當內在價值觀與外在展現的形象斷裂後，我與團隊產生了疏離感。我無法建立真實的互動，只能試圖用外在控制力逼迫大家投入。這不是價值驅動的過程，反而連帶拖垮了團隊的工作狀態。

後來我才發現：真正的解藥是「真誠領導」

後來我才發現，問題的核心在於我可以用真誠領導的方式帶領團隊，而非主流典範的權威模式，使我的內在價值觀與我期望的改變趨於一致。

什麼是真誠領導？

這個概念由哈佛商學院教授 Bill George 提出，核心不是一種人設，或是天生的性格，而是一種選擇，領導者能不能清楚知道自己相信什麼、在乎什麼，並用這個內核去做出每一個決策——即使那意味著要在團隊面前承認不確定、承認自己也在學習。

成為一個一致的領導者

對我來說，真誠領導最終指向的是一件事：我不需要成為一個「正確的領導者」，而是成為一個「一致的領導者」。

在後續的職涯實踐中，我確實看見了巨大的轉變：

• 領導不再費力，而是能量的回流：我不需要再花費巨大的心力去維持一個完美無瑕的虛假形象。當我將內在優勢自然展現，那些原本消耗在「維護形象」上的能量，得以全數還給團隊與決策。

• 團隊建立心理安全感，異議得以提早浮現：當我開始承認不確定，成員也願意向我敞開。我不再需要扮演「全場最聰明的人」，而是扮演能夠凝聚共識、聆聽多元意見，並在取捨後做出決策的人。這讓團隊的潛在異議能在初期被看見，而不是在執行過半後爆發。

• 激發自主成長，打造願景驅動的團隊：我們的工作不再只是為了交差或獲利，而是如何在任務中實踐個人與團隊的信念。最終留下來的人，都是真正高度認同這份願景的夥伴。

在明確的目標與資源限制下，從自我驅動，到驅動團隊，最終演變為共同驅動願景——這才是真誠領導真正強大的槓桿。

為什麼真誠領導在 AI 時代更為關鍵？

哈佛商學院教授 Bill George 在 LinkedIn 真誠領導課程中引用一行禪師說過的話：

在 AI 時代，AI 已經承接了人類最強大的「頭腦」——極致的分析、標準答案與運算效率。如果領導者依然只靠理性與控制來帶領團隊，很快就會被演算法取代。

真正無法被 AI 取代的，正是這 18 吋的距離：清晰地理解自己的領導價值觀、具備與團隊建立信任的能力，以及在關鍵時刻做出契合核心價值觀的判斷。這正是真誠領導的核心精神，也是未來領導者最無法被取代的終極槓桿。

六年前的我，因為缺乏典範而深受痛苦；我希望未來的領導者們能看見，這種領導模式不僅深具力量，而且在 AI 時代將成為最核心的分水嶺。

當 AI 承接了大量工具性與重複性的工作後，人類領導者的核心價值究竟剩下什麼？

我的答案是：理解個人、團隊、組織的價值觀，並做出最終一致的決策。

實踐路上的關鍵資源

如果你也希望成為這樣的領導者，以下是我在實踐路上獲得深刻啟發的資源與前輩，與你分享：

• 《柔韌：善良非軟弱，堅強非霸道，成為職場中溫柔且堅定的存在》：2019 年出版，這本書深刻論述了女性職場工作者的溫柔與共感如何轉化為核心優勢。你不需要當爛好人，而是要將你的善意轉化為有邊界、有力量的領導利器。

• Bill George：哈佛商學院教授、前 Medtronic CEO。他是全球推廣真誠領導的先驅，將實務經驗與理論體系做了極佳的結合，著有《True North》、《Lead True》。

• 臺灣第一個真誠領導學習社群 Lead to Oneness：2025 年，我和夥伴共同創辦了Lead to Oneness 真誠領導 Coaching Program，我們透過工作坊與教練共學機制，持續推動組織內部的真誠領導與實質影響力。目前團隊成員紛紛出國取經，暫停營運，改經營《人本組織研究室》！

My journey with Authentic Leadership traces back six years ago to my first role as a leader. I managed a team of six. The project was highly pioneering with no standard blueprints, requiring not only structured methodologies but also complex stakeholder management.

Faced with intense pressure, I found myself overwhelmed by the scale of the challenge.

To overcome this feeling of losing control, I chose to become a hyper-rational leader, channeling all my energy into efficiency and problem-solving. In doing so, however, I suppressed my core strengths: leading with values, connecting with people, and rallying a team.

I turned into a high-speed machine, blindly pursuing goals that didn’t align with who I was. I paid a heavy price, yet saw no real breakthrough in the project. Ultimately, it took nearly six months of mental therapy to recover.

Three Blind Spots Uncovered in Pain

What does this breakdown have to do with Authentic Leadership? I didn’t discover the antidote right away; it emerged through painful self-reflection, during which I identified three root issues:

1. The Myth of Mainstream Models: Traditional paradigms dictate that leaders must always be right, wise, and never show weakness, lest they lose authority. This image shaped my perception of what a “good leader” should be—except it wasn’t a model that fit me.

2. Blindness to My Own Strengths: I didn’t truly understand my core strengths or positioning as a leader. My core values, what I deeply cared about, and the vision I wanted to achieve were all blurred, and no one had guided me to explore them.

3. The Cost of Value Disconnection: When my internal values disconnected from my external persona, a rift grew between me and my team. Unable to build genuine interactions, I relied on external control to push people forward. It was no longer a value-driven process, which ultimately eroded the team’s morale and performance.

What I Discovered: The Real Antidote Is “Authentic Leadership”

Eventually, I realized the core solution: I could lead through Authentic Leadership rather than relying on authoritative, top-down models. This allowed my internal values to align seamlessly with the impact I aimed to create.

What Is Authentic Leadership?

Authentic Leadership means a leader is willing to be self-aware of their values, strengths, and limitations, ensuring their external actions align with their internal truth.

Pioneered by Harvard Business School professor Bill George, it is not a persona or an innate personality trait. It is a conscious choice: knowing clearly what you believe in and care about, and using that inner compass to make every decision—even when it means admitting uncertainty or acknowledging in front of your team that you are still learning.

Becoming a Consistent Leader

To me, Authentic Leadership ultimately points to one thing: I don’t need to be a “flawless leader,” but a consistent one.

In my subsequent career, this shift brought dramatic transformations:

• Leadership shifted from exhausting to energizing: I no longer spent immense energy maintaining a bulletproof image. By letting my natural strengths shine through, the energy once wasted on “preserving an image” was fully returned to supporting the team and making sound decisions.

• Psychological safety flourished, bringing dissent to light early: When I began acknowledging uncertainties, team members opened up. I stopped trying to be the “smartest person in the room” and instead became a facilitator—building consensus, listening to diverse opinions, and making tough trade-offs. As a result, potential disagreements surfaced early rather than exploding halfway through execution.

• Empowered growth created a vision-driven team: Work was no longer just about completing tasks or hitting financial targets; it became a space to practice personal and collective beliefs. Those who stayed were true believers in our shared vision.

Under clear objectives and resource constraints, moving from self-motivation to team enablement, and ultimately driving a shared vision together—this is the real leverage of Authentic Leadership.

Why Authentic Leadership Matters Even More in the AI Era

In his LinkedIn course on Authentic Leadership, Harvard Business School professor Bill George cited Thich Nhat Hanh:

In the AI era, AI has taken over the most powerful “head”—delivering unrivaled analytical capability, standardized answers, and computational efficiency. If leaders continue to rely solely on hyper-rationality and control, they will quickly be rendered obsolete by algorithms.

What AI can never replace is precisely those 18 inches: gaining a deep understanding of your leadership values, building authentic trust with your team, and making decisions that align with your core principles at critical moments. This is the essence of Authentic Leadership—and the ultimate leverage for future leaders.

Six years ago, I suffered deeply due to a lack of role models. I hope future leaders can see that this approach is not only powerful, but will also serve as the defining competitive edge in the age of AI.

When AI handles the instrumental, repetitive tasks, what remains as the core value of a human leader?

My answer: Understanding the values of individuals, teams, and organizations, and making decisions that stay true to them.

Resources on the Journey

If you aspire to become this kind of leader, here are the resources and mentors that deeply inspired me along the way:

• The Myth of the Nice Girl: Achieving a Career You Love Without Becoming a Person You Hate: Published in 2019, this book explores how warmth and empathy—especially for women in the workplace—can be transformed into core strengths. You don’t need to be a pushover; you can translate goodwill into bounded, powerful leadership.

• Bill George: Harvard Business School professor and former CEO of Medtronic. A global pioneer of Authentic Leadership, he seamlessly blends practical experience with theoretical frameworks in books like True North and Lead True.

• Taiwan’s First Authentic Leadership Community — Lead to Oneness: In 2025, my partners and I co-founded the Lead to Oneness Authentic Leadership Coaching Program. Through workshops and peer coaching, we drove authentic leadership and tangible impact within organizations. As team members have temporarily headed abroad to pursue further studies, operations are currently on pause, pivoting our focus to People-First Lab!

今年夏天，我即將前往 VU Amsterdam 荷蘭阿姆斯特丹自由大學，讀 Master’s Culture, Organization, Management（以下簡稱 VU COM）。當我告知朋友時，不少人都相當意外這是我唯一申請的科系，隨著收到各式回饋，也不時開始質疑自己，

選擇一個非主流且無法線性與未來薪資掛勾的科系，是不是一個「正確的」選擇？

因此寫下，這幾番來回的思考過程。

學校官網上的科系介紹，直接寫上這是「唯一」一個聚焦人本管理的科系，運用人類學、社會學等去分析管理與組織，這是為何我選擇的原因。

申請過程：過去生涯梳理

在申請碩士學位時，我清楚定錨了「社會科學結合管理學」這個取向。

回顧過去的職涯：

從外交系畢業，與朋友創辦設計思考顧問公司 → 社會企業 ESG Director → 非營利組織 COO → 到跨國軟體新創的 People Strategy 角色。這非典型的六年路徑，讓我深刻有感三件事：

• 我熱愛掌握 Macro & Micro-level Thinking： 大學社會科學累積的思辨，結合設計思考的人本思維與教練技術，讓我能同時看見系統結構與個體行為。

• 我在意「我們（as a team）」是否追求 Impact： 組織不只是機器的總和，而是人的協作網絡。

• 我相信人的能動性（Agency），才是商業價值的放大器： 作為主管與 HR，我追求建立「人本管理」的組織，因為那是真正能驅動長期績效的底層引擎。

考量組織發展成熟的國家與所需費用，我在荷蘭篩選出 2-3 個「社會科學結合管理學」的科系。最終，因為渴望一個充滿跨國企業、社會議題與藝術發生的地方，我定錨在阿姆斯特丹——VU Amsterdam COM。唯一申請，並順利錄取。

這是不是一個「正確的」選擇？

扣回開頭所說，選擇一個非主流科系，是不是一個「正確的」選擇？

正確是畢業後能夠留在歐洲工作嗎？
正確是畢業後薪水可以直接上漲 30% 嗎？
正確是可以獲得更高的社會地位嗎？

這些都是真實的考量，我不會假裝它們不重要。但這些質疑也讓我更深層地感受（而非分析），是什麼讓我只申請這個科系且二話不說地 take？是什麼讓我驕傲地說出我即將要去念組織科學？

作為一位極致 Self-motivated 的工作者，我無法接受我的工作只是工作；它必須契合我所追求的價值。同時我也深知，在真實的系統裡，光有理想是不夠的——具備看透系統運作的眼光，你的價值觀才能被接受、被看見。

為什麼這在 AI 世代更重要？看見「厚數據」

管理學界有一句經典名言：「文化把策略當早餐吃掉了」（Culture eats strategy for breakfast）。

這句話精準點出了一個許多決策者的盲點：若沒有相符的企業文化來支撐，再完美的策略也會因為員工行為、內部氛圍和潛規則而徹底失效。

在跨國軟體新創、NGO、社會企業這六年的經驗，包含從零到一建造人才系統、擔任管理職等，發現影響決策品質與執行力的，往往是那些沒有寫在 SOP 上的東西。

這也是為什麼我決定開始這個 Substack 電子報，並公開寫作。我將結合過去的實務經驗，反思課堂理論如何對應組織真實的掙扎，並具象化那些傳統管理學不會寫的——權力、敘事、文化與認同。

我相信在 AI 世代，改變只會越來越快。當 AI 能瞬間產出所有績效數據與市場分析（Big Data）時，

未來一年多，你可以在這裡讀到：

• 課堂上的組織理論與我六年實務經驗的對話

• 荷蘭與歐洲組織文化的第一手觀察

• 一個台灣 People 工作者在歐洲重新定位自己的過程

這裡不會只有整理好的結論，因為變革的真實樣貌本來就不是線性的。紀錄過程本身，就是這份電子報想實踐的事。

結語：這是一個「一致的」選擇

寫到這裡，我發現我沒辦法、也不需要回答這個問題。因為「正確」預設了一個外部的計分板——薪水、地位、留歐機率——但這個選擇從來不是在答題，而是在表態。

這是一個「一致的」選擇。跟我六年來相信的事一致，跟我在意的人與文化一致，跟我想成為的樣子一致。

也許幾年後回頭看，它在計分板上不一定高分，但至少我會知道：

歡迎訂閱，我們阿姆斯特丹見！

English Version

This summer, I’ll be heading to VU Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) to study the Master’s in Culture, Organization, and Management (which I’ll call VU COM from here on). When I told friends, many were surprised to learn this was the only programme I applied to. And as more responses came in, I’ve started, now and then, to question myself:

Choosing a non-mainstream field — one that can’t be neatly, linearly tied to my future salary — is that a “correct” choice?

So I’m writing this down: the back-and-forth of how I thought it through.

The programme description on the university’s website states outright that this is the “only” programme focused on human-centred management — drawing on anthropology, sociology, and other disciplines to analyse management and organizations. That’s exactly why I chose it.

The Application Process: Making Sense of My Career

When I was applying for a master’s, I was clear on my anchor — the intersection of social science and management. Here’s how I reasoned through it.

A quick introduction to my background:
From graduating with a degree in Diplomacy and co-founding a design-thinking consultancy with friends → moving into a social enterprise as ESG Director → joining a non-profit as COO → to taking on a People Strategy role in a multinational software startup. These six unconventional years left me with three deep convictions:

1. I love mastering Macro & Micro-level Thinking: The critical thinking I built up through social science at university, combined with the human-centred mindset of Design Thinking and Coaching Skills, enables me to see both the system structure and individual behaviours simultaneously.

2. I care about whether we, “as a team,” are pursuing impact: An organization is not just a sum of machines; it’s a collaborative network of people.

3. I believe human agency is the true amplifier of business value: As a manager and an HR/People professional, what I pursue is how to build a “human-centred” organization, because I believe that is the true underlying engine for long-term performance.

Weighing up countries with mature organizational-development ecosystems and the costs involved, I narrowed my choices down in the Netherlands to 2-3 programmes at the intersection of social science and management. Finally, craving a place bustling with multinational companies, social issues, and art, I anchored on Amsterdam — VU Amsterdam COM. The only programme I applied to, and I was accepted.

So — Is This a “correct” Choice?

Back to where I started: choosing a non-mainstream field, one that can’t be linearly tied to future career and salary — is that a “correct” choice?

Is “correct” being able to stay and work in Europe after graduating?
Is “correct” a salary that jumps 30% straight after graduation?
Is “correct” gaining higher social status?

These are all real considerations, and I won’t pretend they don’t matter. But these very doubts made me feel — rather than analyse — more deeply: what was it that made me apply to this one programme and accept without hesitation? What is it that lets me say, with pride, that I’m about to go study organizational science?

As an intensely self-motivated worker, I can’t accept work that’s just work; it must align with the values I pursue. At the same time, I also know that in the real system, ideals alone aren’t enough — you need the insight to see through how systems operate so that your values can be accepted and seen.

Why This Matters More in the AI Era: Seeing “Thick Data”

There is a famous saying in management: “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.”

This perfectly captures a blind spot for many decision-makers: without the right organizational culture to support it, even the most perfect strategy will fail, derailed by employee behaviours, internal atmosphere, and unwritten rules.

Over the past six years across a multinational software startup, an NGO, and a social enterprise — including building talent systems from zero to one and holding management roles — I’ve found that the factors truly impacting decision quality and execution are rarely written in SOPs.

This is exactly why I decided to start this Substack newsletter and write in public.

I will draw on my practical experience to reflect on how classroom theories map onto the real struggles of organizations, and make tangible the things traditional management theory often ignores: power, narrative, culture, and identity.

I believe that in the age of AI, change will only accelerate. When AI can instantly generate all performance metrics and market analysis (Big Data),

Over the coming year or so, here’s what you can read here:

• The dialogue between organizational theory in the classroom and my six years of hands-on experience

• First-hand observations of Dutch and European organizational culture

• The process of a Taiwanese People professional repositioning herself in Europe

This won’t be a place of neatly packaged conclusions — because the real shape of change was never linear to begin with. Documenting the process itself is exactly what this newsletter sets out to practise.

Closing: A “Consistent” Choice

Back to the question I opened with: Is this a “correct” choice?

Writing my way here, I’ve realised I can’t answer that question — and I don’t need to. Because “correct” presupposes an external scoreboard: salary, status, the odds of staying in Europe. But this choice was never about answering a test question. It is about making a statement.

This is a consistent choice. Consistent with what I’ve believed for six years, consistent with the people and culture I care about, and consistent with who I want to become.

Maybe, looking back a few years from now, it won’t score high on that scoreboard — but at the very least, I’ll know:

See you in Amsterdam!