What is the procedure for exiting partners from a partner firm. New business partnerships

A slightly different view of the relationship between a man and a woman

Family order according to Bert Hellinger

The relationship between a man and a woman is the deepest foundation of being. By and large, they guarantee the existence of mankind, ensuring the origin, preservation and continuation of life on Earth. Perhaps it sounds global and pathetic, but fact remains.

Most often, gender relations are viewed from the point of view of interpersonal interaction. Problems are believed to be rooted in early childhood, non-constructive patterns of behavior, limiting beliefs, and low levels of awareness.

I want to offer a slightly different view of the relationship between a man and a woman. We will consider some aspects of partnership from the point of view of the systemic - phenomenological approach of Bert Hellinger, the author of the method of systemic constellations.

This approach, exploring the orders of human coexistence, proceeds from the fact that a person is not only an individual, but also a part of the system, primarily a family one. We didn't come from anywhere. We came from a family and are associated with it. 1/2 we consist of our parents, 1/4 of grandparents, 1/8 of great-grandmothers and great-grandfathers, man is a link in the chain of his ancestors. And therefore, his life is influenced not only by personal experience, but also by especially significant events that took place in family history.

As a rule, this influence can extend up to 4 generations, in the case of especially difficult destinies - up to 7 generations. The spiritual force that unites the system is “binding love”. Under its influence, a person himself, without knowing it and not wanting to, can live the fate of one of the members of his system or subconsciously adopt the experience, tasks, behavior patterns, feelings of someone from previous generations, while perceiving them as his own. Such interweaving occurs as a result of violation of systemic laws by the person himself or by someone from his system.

These laws Bert Hellinger calls them "orders of love." Usually they are not realized, but they invariably affect us and our life. They operate regardless of whether we know about them or not, agree with them or ignore them. And just as it is impossible to overcome the laws of nature, so it is impossible to be in harmony with oneself and others, neglecting the systemic laws of human relations.

Very often, problematic situations in partnerships are associated with the fact that one or both partners are intertwined with their parental family systems. Moreover, the partners themselves are not to blame for this - they do not realize this. They suffer, despite the fact that they love each other, diligently seek solutions, convinced that if they try hard enough, they can find it. But since the roots of relationship crises are to be found elsewhere, their efforts and appeals for goodwill remain in vain.

For example, it is not uncommon for one of the partners to seek to leave, despite the fact that he loves the other. This stems from the fact that, perhaps, he wants to follow into death someone from his parental family, or to share the fate of the one who was expelled so that another person would stay alive, or excluded, or undeservedly forgotten and undervalued. Sometimes a new relationship is hampered by a connection with a former partner, especially if there is still guilt in front of him or he died, and the mourning for him remained unfinished.

The consequences of systemic disorders and interweaving can manifest itself in partners and at the bodily level in the form of diseases, addictions, unexplained pain, inadequate emotional responses.

In one article, it is not possible to describe in detail the basic system orders, and the consequences of their violations, as well as ways to overcome interweaving and find a liberating solution. Therefore, I will dwell in more detail on the "orders of love" that operate in partnerships. So:

Orders of love between a man and a woman and what follows their violation

Before talking about orders, let's clarify the question:

"How do we become men and women?"

Let's start with the boys. As a child, a boy is in the sphere of influence of his mother, from her he learns what femininity is. CG Jung calls the feminine principle in the soul of a man “anima”, and the masculine principle in the soul of a woman - “animus”. A man develops his anima next to his mother, and if the son remains in the mother's sphere of influence, the anima develops more strongly. Remaining with his mother, he perceives the feminine beyond measure, and it fills his soul. This prevents the boy from accepting his father and the masculine principle in him narrows and the further, the more it disappears. In the mother's sphere of influence, the son often turns out to be only a young man, but not a man, a conqueror of hearts, a lover, but not a husband. And, oddly enough, then there is less understanding and empathy in him in relation to other women.

Macho is always a person with a strong anima, he is always connected with his mother. This is a boy or a hero, but not a man. Don Juan is also my mother's son, who has not turned into a man. It is typical for a young man to have many women. A man can choose a woman and become her husband.

To become a man, a son must abandon the first woman in his life and move early enough from the mother's sphere of influence to the father's sphere of influence. He must tear himself away from his mother and stand next to his father. For my son, this is a huge rejection and a fundamental change. Previously, this transition was carried out deliberately through initiation rituals. After them, the boy could no longer go back to his mother. Next to the Father, the son becomes a man who has renounced the feminine in himself. Then he can leave the woman to give him the feminine, and then a reliable, lasting relationship develops.

The daughter, too, is at first close to her mother and intensely perceives her, but in a different way from the son. She reaches out to her father. The first acquaintance with the masculine principle occurs in a relationship with the father, and the masculine fascinates her. If she remains in her father's sphere of influence, her soul is overflowing with masculine. Then she can become only a girl, but not a woman, a lover, but not a wife. Later, she will not be able to fully approach another man, appreciate him and treat him as an equal.

To become a woman, a girl must abandon the first man in her life, that is, her father, leave him, return to her mother and stand next to her. There she will turn into a woman and later also find her man, whom she can afford to give herself masculine. And she will have more sympathy and understanding in relation to the identity and values ​​of men.. This is the exact opposite of the narcissistic notion that a woman should develop masculine qualities in herself.

The best marriage is where dad's son marries mom's daughter. But it often happens that daddy's daughter marries mom's son.

The relationship of love and order

You can often observe: relationships collapse, despite great love. So it's obviously not about love. There is a widespread misconception that love complements and replaces what is lacking. And many problems in relationships arise due to the fact that one of the partners does not want to admit the obvious and believes that with the help of reflection, some effort or love, he can still fix everything. However, this will not affect an order of magnitude. This is an illusion, it is simply impossible. Love is part of order and develops within the framework of order. Whoever tries to reverse this relationship and, with the help of love, transform the order, fails.

By adjusting to the order, love can develop in it like a seed. It enters the soil and does not try to change it, it grows.

The basis of love is respect for a partner, for his origin and respect for himself and his origin, as well as consent to the differences in us.

Adult love knows boundaries and enjoys what it has. If in a good mood a partner suits you by 80%, and in a bad mood by 51% - this is a good partner and you do not need to look for another

"Boundaries of Freedom"

In all respects, their boundaries are established - narrow or wide. Guilt helps to detect them. Where wine begins, there is a border. Within these boundaries is the space of innocence and freedom. These statements are identical. As long as there are no boundaries, there is no freedom... Then everything is blurred. If a person has checked where the boundaries are, he knows where his freedom is. Completeness is realized within the boundaries.

"A man wants a woman to be his wife, and a woman wants a man to be her husband"

Only when a man gives himself to a woman as a husband and takes her as a wife, and a woman gives herself to a man as a wife and takes him as a husband, only then they are a man and a woman, and only then they become a couple. When they form a pair, they gain a greater specific gravity than before. A married man has a higher proportion than an unmarried one, and a married woman has a higher proportion than an unmarried one. This is the rule, but there are exceptions.

A man has something that a woman does not have, and a woman has something that a man does not have. Therefore, they are drawn to each other and this is a thrust of enormous power. They are equal to each other in their inadequacy and in their ability to give something important to another and thus complement it. Both must agree with their limitations, then they become able to enter into relationships and maintain them.

And if in a pair one wants to be with the other more for some other reason, for example, for pleasure or security, because the other is rich or poor, educated or simple, Catholic or Orthodox, because one wants to conquer, protect, improve or save another. Or, as it is sometimes remarkably said, because one wants to see another father or mother of his children, then the foundation of such a relationship is built on sand, and there is already a worm in the apple.

Getting married is a farewell to youth. Partnership without marriage is a continuation of adolescence. If a couple lives together for a long time and does not marry, each of them says to the other: I continue to look for something better. This is a constant unconscious insult.

One of the difficulties of a relationship in a couple is that in a partnership we want to preserve and save youth. But this is impossible, she is left behind. Human development always happens in such a way that we cross a certain threshold. When we find ourselves behind this threshold, everything changes, and we cannot go back. The simplest example is birth. The child is very good in the mother's womb. But at some point he needs to cross the threshold. But there everything is different and he cannot go back.

The next big threshold is marriage. Youth is left behind. You can't go back. Partnerships succeed when we cross this threshold and look forward, not backward.

We do not always recognize that partnerships are the most important thing in life for us. They deeply touch us, this is an elementary manifestation of love that goes far beyond ourselves.

Having met a partner, we think: "Now we will all love each other and we will be happy." But thinking this way, we do not understand that we are driven by a powerful force, that we are entering the "service" that we will have to carry all our lives. It penetrates into the very depths of our being, makes us happy and hurts. In the process of partnering, everyone grows and dies equally. In the process of growth, we overcome ourselves on the way to something more. So it is in partnerships: what we perceive as a problem or crisis is part of such a process.

Sometimes, drawing on the experience of free relationships, some view their partnership as if its goals can be set arbitrarily, and the duration and order can be determined, changed or canceled depending on their own mood and well-being. But by doing so, they give their partnership at the mercy of frivolity.

Perhaps too late we begin to realize that there is order here that cannot be violated with impunity. If one of the partners with a light heart, with no one and no regard for anything, dissolves the relationship, then the child born in them often behaves as if he must atone for some injustice. In fact, the goals of partnership are set for us from the outset, and if we want to achieve them, they require persistence and sacrifice.

It is also necessary to take into account the connection, something that partners often underestimate. If two people love each other and perform the fulfillment of love (by "fulfillment of love", Bert Hellinger means sexual relations), then both become not free, but bound for life. One of the biggest disagreements in partnerships is that some believe that they are still free after fulfilling their love. Freedom has been lost, and it cannot be changed, it is a given. This is part of the ministry. How deep this connection is can be seen in the process of the Constellations.

"Child-oriented, keeping the priority of partner love"

Only in the child does the male and female reach their fullness. Only by becoming a father does a man become in the full sense of the word, and only by becoming a mother does a woman become, in the full sense, a woman. In a child, a man and a woman become, in the full sense and visible to all, an indissoluble whole. However, it is important that their parental love for the child only continues and crowns their love as a couple. After all, their love for each other precedes their parental love and, as the roots hold and nourish the tree, so their love, as a couple, holds and nourishes their love for the child.

If in the family parents give priority to parenting over partnership, then the order is violated and problems arise. The solution is for partnerships to take precedence over parenting again. When this happens, you can see it immediately: children breathe a sigh of relief when they see their parents as a couple. Then everyone gets better at once.

The transition to parenthood contains another rejection of childhood and adolescence. Entering this relationship, a person crosses the threshold again and cannot go back. Childhood and adolescence are once again left behind. Being in the illusion about the possibility of repeating the flower-bouquet stage in a relationship or a return to the carelessness inherent in a bachelor life, we push the relationship to collapse, and we ourselves risk remaining "eternal children." What, then, can the “big eternal children” give to their born children? What can they teach? What life wisdom will be conveyed?

You can look at two people and see what is happening between them. But ignoring how their actions are reflected in their environment and children, we will not understand something very important. Both of them can feel great, and at the same time, their behavior can negatively affect their children or grandchildren. Order always involves the inclusion of many and, in essence, means that the different interacts in a way that is good for everyone. The order is not implemented at the expense of one person, it costs everyone the same, with equal or at least similar benefits for everyone.

"Equality as a Prerequisite for Strong Relationships"

Both partners are equally good and bad in what they have and what they lack. Any attempt to behave towards another, either from a position of superiority (like a parent) or from a position of dependence and subordination (like a child) limits partnerships and puts them at risk.

If one of the partners, for example, expects to receive from the other the same security that only parents can give their children, then the order of this partnership is violated. This prevents exchange and compensation from occurring between peer adults. Then the next crisis usually ends with the partner, on whom too high expectations were directed, moves away or leaves.

Moreover, it is completely justified, because, transferring order from childhood to partnership, the other makes excessive demands on it. If, for example, a husband says to his wife: “I cannot live without you” or: “If you leave, I will commit suicide, life will lose all meaning for me,” then the wife needs to leave. The partnership will fail, because by this he hangs the sword of Damocles over the partner, and no one is able to withstand this for long. This is appropriate when a small child says this to his parents, since the child quite justifiably feels completely dependent on the parents.

True, in partnership there is also a deep connection arising from the fulfillment of love, but it has a different quality than the child's attachment to his parents.

Partnership is also under threat when one of the partners behaves as if he has the right to educate the other or considers himself obliged to "educate" him in some way. But the other partner had it all once before. It is not surprising that he then leaves, as a child leaves his parents in due time and seeks relief and compensation on the side. Then the lover (lover) is his equal (s). The surest way to get rid of a partner is to start raising him.

If a good relationship is maintained with a partner, and nevertheless there is a mistress (lover), then on the side he (a) is looking for a mother. A woman living in a "love triangle" is, as a rule, my father's daughter, and a man is my mother's son.

Power games between spouses also violate equality by undermining the system, sometimes until it collapses.

It also happens that in partnerships the boundaries are set too tightly, then one of the partners turns someone on the side, thanks to which the boundaries expand and new free space appears.

"Equality in partnerships in terms of" feel and satisfy desire. "

In our culture, it is accepted that it is mainly the man who desires, and the woman mainly satisfies the desire. This alone already creates the basis for possible violations, since desire seems to be something small, and satisfaction is something big. In this case, one of the partners turns out to be in the role of the needy, the one who takes, and the other, albeit perhaps loving, turns out to be in the role of the helping, the one who gives. Then the one who takes should probably give thanks, as if he took without giving anything; and the one who gives can feel a sense of superiority and freedom, as if he gave without taking anything. But that means giving up balancing, which jeopardizes exchange and the law of give-and-take balance.

However, some enjoy holding on in partnership to the position of the gratifying - the position of superiority and power, and then discord ensues in the relationship.

A partner who, by getting married, owes something to another, will then take revenge for it. For a relationship to work, the risk of rejection must be shared. Partners can agree that if one of them discovers and puts on the map his innermost (and this is what happens when he wants to), then the other respects it, even if he does not fulfill it. Desire should not lead to humiliating rejection - because at this point we are especially vulnerable. Then the next time you can risk it again, and then a deep relationship becomes possible.

In order for the exchange and balancing to take place without disturbance, everyone must desire and everyone must, with love and respect, give to the other what he so passionately desires, what he needs so much, or refuse with respect.

For many couples, the problem is that sexual relationships have become too important for them in the relationship in general. In this case, sex becomes the goal of the relationship, rather than serving it. When sexual relationships serve the relationship, they are more cordial, deeper, and more varied.

Gradually we came to another important order:

"Balancing or reciprocity of the give-take process"

There is always an exchange in a relationship. For a relationship to develop, both must give what they have and take what they don't have. with love and gratitude.

The exchange takes place in both good and bad. We give a little more of the good than the balancing requires, so the exchange of the good increases.

If one does something to the other that hurts him or offends him, then the victim should not (out of the consciousness of his own innocence) do more harm to the other than they did to her, because then she gives the other the right to get angry again.

If the victim and the culprit each time inflict more harm on each other, then they treat the evil as if it were good, and the exchange in the bad grows. This exchange also binds partners to each other, but to their misfortune. The victim should do a little less harm to the culprit. Then she pays tribute to both justice and love, and then again the exchange can be renewed and continued in good.

In cases where the victim is too kind to be evil (I will endure everything for the sake of ..., I'd rather not say anything, etc.), then the balance is not restored and one of the partners can no longer become his equal, the relationship is threatened.

Here, not only the give-take balance is important, but also the size of the turnover. A small turnover is given to take and the profit is small. And a large turnover makes us richer, gives us a feeling of completeness and happiness, a feeling of lightness and freedom.

By the way, by what kind of exchange occurs - rather in bad or rather in good - and how high the turnover in good and evil, you can determine the quality of the relationship in a couple.

An imbalance in the give-and-take balance manifests itself in rejection. Sometimes, in order to preserve the illusion of independence and innocence, they refuse to participate in the exchange. They would rather be completely closed to others than take something. Then the feeling is created that they do not owe anything to anyone. And so they seem special to themselves or consider themselves better than others. We meet with this position in many who suffer from depression. Their refusal to take, primarily to relate to their parents, later transferred to other relationships, including partnerships, and to many good things in this world.

They motivate the refusal by the fact that they were offered the wrong thing or that it was too little. They can also justify their rejection by the mistakes of the givers. But the result is still the same: they remain passive and empty.

The opposite is completeness. Those who manage to accept their parents as they are, take from them everything that gives them a feeling of a constant flow of energy and happiness. This acceptance makes them able to have other relationships in which they can take a lot and give a lot.

The claim is that I gave the other more than they gave me. It is worth taking from another, as the claims cease. Therefore, some prefer to keep the claims and do not allow others to give them too. "You'd better be obligated than I." Claiming freedom from commitment is detrimental to a relationship. Because the one who does not want to give up his superiority, denies the other equality. And soon others no longer want to take anything from someone who does not want to take anything himself. They move away from him or begin to get angry and even take revenge.

The exchange is also terminated if one partner gives the other more than he can accept or wants to reimburse. Conversely, if one wants more than the other can or wants to give him.

These are the basic orders of balance between giving - taking between equals - partners.

In the relationship between parents and children, the order is different - the parents give, and the children take. Children cannot return life equivalent to what they received from their parents, so they pass on what they received further to their children. And thus the balance is restored.

"Compensation"

If one member of the system gives something to another member of the system (or takes something away), this must be adequately balanced. An imbalance leads to a weakening or disintegration of relationships. Therefore, compensation is important in good and bad.

If harm, resentment, pain, betrayal has been caused, then it is important to demand compensation and it must correspond to the damage caused. For example, a woman had a relationship on the side and she wants to return, then her husband cannot just say “I forgive”, he must ask her to do something that will be difficult for her.

Revenge - the balance is established only for a moment, as it awakens in others a reciprocal need for revenge. The desire to bring in the bad grows stronger. And then love turns into a painful connection with violence and neglect.

If a husband gives to his wife or a wife gives to her husband in the same way as parents give children, for example, one gives the other the opportunity, already being married, to get a higher education, then the one who received so much from the other can no longer be on an equal footing with him. ... Let him still owe him, but after completing his studies, he usually leaves the other. (as a child leaves his parents) Only if he fully reimburses all costs and repays his partner for all efforts, he can again become his equal and stay with him. Everything that is compensated is no longer remembered!

"Priority of the married family over the parental"

By the fulfillment of love, a man, according to the beautiful word of the Bible, leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and both become one flesh. The same is true for a woman.

The husband loves his parents, the wife loves hers. After marriage or the birth of children, they must leave their parents. "My family is more important to me now." This is essential for the survival of the new system. It is still unstable and separation is needed for the system to become stable. Parting with the parental family, we become adults. Refusal to parents should be deliberate and with due respect for them and the partner: "I'm sorry, but we want ...", "Our family has decided ..." - this allows us to maintain the hierarchical order and strengthen the young system (family). You can’t tell your parents: “Your wife doesn’t want to, you’re a mother, don’t be angry,” “A husband refuses, you’re a mother, don’t be offended” in such a phrase, infantilism and disrespect are manifested.

It is useful to know about the childhood wounds of a partner, what his soul needed. You need to talk without the assessments and reproaches of the parents, without lamenting and indignation. Leave the past to the past, look at each other.

"With each successive partnership, the bond weakens." But the happiness is not diminishing. Here one could argue that the divorce and the new relationship that follows it prove that the first relationship is dissolvable. However, the new relationship works differently than the first. The second relationship develops successfully only if the attachment to the previous partner is recognized and respected and if the new partner knows that he will always be lower than the previous one, and that he will always be in his debt, because "The first made room for him."

The second relationship has to develop "in the face" of the previous ones. They no longer have the depth that was in the first. They cannot possess it, and they do not need it. However, this does not mean that they will have less love and happiness. It is possible that in the second relationship there will be love both more and deeper. Only the connection in its original sense, such as in the first relationship, is not given to them. Therefore, when the second relationship is broken, there is usually less guilt and commitment than when the first is broken. In addition, parting is more likely in them, there is less guilt and pain associated with it. So from relationship to relationship, the connection gets weaker. The depth of the bond can be determined by how much guilt and pain there is when parting.

Disrespect for past partners has far-reaching consequences for children. Because out of loyalty to the father or mother, children realize in their lives what is despised in a partner. If a child is told, “Don't be like your father,” then unconsciously he will do everything to be like. Thus, bonding love is manifested, defending the right of the excluded, and restoring the integrity of the system.

When a couple break up, they do not notice the children in pain. Children are the most vulnerable. The child often lacks support and is afraid of being caught in the crossfire. They need help first.

After a divorce, children should stay with the parent who respects the other parent the most.

Children cannot be protected by being silent or hiding something. Children know everything in their hearts. You can protect a child by respecting and thanks to a partner for what was good.

It is best to tell children about family stories with respect for people and events.

"Abortion"

There are always consequences of abortion. And they are much harder than consenting to a child. What those who decide to have an abortion take on themselves as a heavy burden is much heavier than what they would take upon themselves if they had a child.

The abortion is out of order. An aborted child gives up his life, and not voluntarily. And parents take everything (for 20 years they will not need to care, they will have a certain freedom).

The soul cannot stand it, especially the soul of a woman, but neither can a man. In an abortion, the partner is rejected, excluded and cleansed together with the child. This is the process. The couple pays for this incident by breaking up most often.

If an abortion is done in marriage, then sexual relations often end, and estrangement of partners appears.

In the case of abortion, it often happens that the man shirks responsibility and shifts it onto the woman. But the entire responsibility lies with both (each 100%), although the woman experiences the consequences harder. She does not feel happy in love, cannot find a partner, and is sick with serious illnesses. In constellations, there are certain rituals for accepting a child and completing a given situation. But this will only work if the parents can be in pain. Pain is a tribute to the child, it reconciles him with his parents. If parents manage to see the child as an equal and admit that he gave his life, and accept it as a gift, then in the end peace and harmony comes.

If the baby does not develop in the womb, then the couple may separate. Unconsciously, it is perceived as follows: "He does not want this because of us."

A stillborn child belongs to the family. There must be a period of mourning. Everyone, including children, should know about him. He must have a name.

Living children can be told about aborted children at the call of the mother's heart, when there is a readiness.

The words "and according to Adizes it turns out that we ..." can be heard from a graduate of the MBA course or a very well-read leader. But you need to read Adizes's books earlier - when you are just starting your journey along the uneven path of your own business. Why?

They say that the Chinese have two curses: "so that you live in an era of change" and "that you do business with your friends." The first is attributed to Confucius, the second I just invented myself, but it sounds no worse.

As a rule, businessmen are extremely self-confident people, without unnecessary reflections. They prefer to do and see, instead of looking for a hundred reasons why this is impossible. Therefore, they hear numerous advices not to do business with relatives and friends, but act in their own way.

A story about three friends

There were three of us, my friends were called Kostya and Andrey, and we lived in the same room of a student hostel. I don’t know what the students are doing now instead of studying, but in the nineties the students “stirred up business”. Life was in full swing.

The most desperate sold each other virtual carriages of red mercury - "I have a reliable man, the right thing to do", who is simpler - traded timber and titanium - "his father knows the chief engineer of the plant, we will enter through him" to the collective farm chairman, he will ship the potatoes to us, sell them to the base or somewhere else. "

The hostel was seething - potential millionaires scurried from room to room with a heap of papers, fired cigarettes at each other, shared fresh quotes from the London Stock Exchange and cutlets stolen from the girl's kitchen.

Against the background of this child of financial revelry, our ideas were not just boring - they were dreary. Sale of newspapers at the night station, sale of fruits in the recreation park, sale of ice cream on the streets of the city. Ugh.

But each idea turned into a project that needed to be launched, solving dozens of urgent questions and questions. Kostya and I knocked off our feet, in a race gushed with new ideas, Andrei looked at all this entrepreneurial riot with irony and refused to participate.

He had already decided on the topic of his thesis, in order to do it, it was necessary to translate a thick book into Russian. Which he did, with the imperturbable methodicalness of an automobile assembly line.

Meanwhile, a year later we had three stationary kiosks and a dozen mobile retail outlets. There was enough money, but it was clearly less than we had dreamed for ourselves at the very beginning - almost everything went into circulation. The routine was rolling, I understood less and less why I was doing this, but leaving Kostya was unthinkable.

The problem was resolved after Andrei, who had defended his diploma, joined the case. This is where his habit of sorting things out came in handy - the things he put things in order went so much better that I got my share (we called it "severance pay") earlier than planned. Then I left and we did not communicate for a long time, practically losing each other - rare calls do not count.

Ten years later, I learned that the business is booming - three stationary kiosks have turned into a small but stable retail network with its own production.

Only Kostya has not been in this business for a long time and they parted with Andrey “not very well”. With a fake grenade in the car, shooting at the windows of a neighboring apartment (they are confused, it happens), country "shooters" and other everyday business of the nineties.

As Andrei said, Kostya in the last couple of years frankly "did not pull", he was bored. And at the same time "for the exit" he wanted half of everything in monetary terms, which was completely unrealistic. When Andrei refused such conditions, Kostya actually switched to sabotage.

The story is not the worst - there are much darker examples of the separation of former friends-business partners, but it is quite indicative. What at first glance may seem like an accident (a bad person was caught, my friends are not like that) has much deeper explanations.

Kostya was a typical “entrepreneur”, Andrey clearly showed the features of an “administrator” - and the relationship between these two types of management is never simple.

Their conflict is inevitable and can lead very far - especially when people try to explain it by character traits, and not by an objective clash of "Adizes functions". But if someone had told Andrei and Kostya in those years that Adizes knew everything about them, he would have received in response a wish not to trump the names of unknown authorities, but to present them on the merits.

The four functions of a leader

Itzhak Adizes, an expert on improving management efficiency, argues that managers can be divided into 4 types according to the functions that are key for them: production, administration, entrepreneurship and integration... Adizes's theory deserves a separate detailed discussion, while we need only the most general, simplified presentation.

The bottom line is that at different stages of the life of any company, it should be led by people who have more pronounced certain functions.
Roughly speaking, when the firm has just appeared and the business has not yet got on its feet, a person with pronounced functions of "entrepreneur" and "manufacturer" should come out on top.

How entrepreneur he looks ahead, puts forward many ideas, immediately embodies them, makes mistakes, comes up with new ones, is ready to work today to get the result the day after tomorrow.

How manufacturer it is important for him to know his client, his needs, he is sensitive to market changes, works for the result and is ready to go all the way.

When the business is on its feet, the place of the entrepreneur should be taken by a person who combines the qualities of a manufacturer and an administrator. Administrator builds the system and makes it work. It is important for him to strictly follow the procedures, he adheres to the budget, foresees problems, covers the rear.

Of course, in real life there is no such clear division of managers into types (although there are none in theory, Adizes is more complicated and interesting than I am trying to explain). But many of those in business will agree that there are very different styles of doing business.

It used to help, but now it hinders

The problem is that the things that can help in starting a business start getting in the way over time. When you start a business with friends, you don’t bother about who works for a common cause. Everyone works hard, works as much as they can. The financial issue, as a rule, also does not bother - there is nothing to share yet, but we invest either equally, or as far as possible.

There are any number of cases when one partner sells a car so that there is money for the first time of work, and the second invests real estate in a common business - an office is now located in an apartment that he previously rented out.

Responsibilities are also not formalized - everyone does what is needed now, what can be the scores between friends?

This approach helps to do everything quickly - make a decision, test new ideas. But then, when the business has already gained momentum, details begin to manifest themselves that were either not noticed or did not pay attention to before.

Suddenly, it turns out that each of the partners believes that it is he who works harder than the others and makes the main contribution to the overall success. And it does not annoy him at all, it is enough that everyone sees and appreciates it. And if so, then the decisive word in the dispute should belong to the one who does the most. And everyone is convinced that this is about him. And then several of these personal illusions collide with each other and a loud mental "boom" occurs.

It immediately becomes clear that everyone has accumulated complaints against the partner that could easily be settled, start expressing and discussing them in time... That is, right away. But no one spoke about them right away, so as not to offend a friend.

Or someone is simply not capable of doing their daily routine. Or partners do not have the same views on how to distribute the first profit - to use everything for development or throw a chic banquet.
And people just may have different life priorities. Or different scales of personality.

There is such a book - "Big ration". A bad film "Oligarch" was shot based on it, but the book itself is good. The author is Yuliy Dubov, an associate of Berezovsky, who started a business with him. The book tells about a group of friends who started doing business as soon as possible.

At the beginning of the story, Plato, gushing with ideas (Berezovsky himself became his prototype), moves the whole team forward, building dizzying schemes in the spirit of adventure novels and earning the first money for friends. Then a small LLC turns into the largest company in the country and now:

Believe it or not, all of the above was an introduction.

It would be good to joke here that this is how it happens when they pay for the number of characters. But no. The introduction was long on the case, but we will skip the essence quickly - we have already said the main thing.

And the essence is something like this - what seems to us someone's evil will or unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, may just be an inevitable stage of development. As the child changes, growing up, so the business grows up and begins to demand other character traits for its development.

It is said that marriages of convenience are the strongest. If we transfer this analogy to business, then a business partnership based on friendships can be called a marriage ... did you think I'll write for love? It would have sounded beautiful, but wrong. Friendship business is more like a “fly-by-night marriage”, which happens because there is nowhere to go.

What do you think, if novice businessmen at the start had the opportunity to choose partners with whom they would complement and strengthen each other, so that together they personify all four components of the "Adizes formula", would they limit their search to a circle of friends?

I doubt it very much. As a rule, when we start a business with friends or relatives, we simply have no other choice - a friend is here, next to him, and where to look for others? And what to offer them, how to negotiate, if there is no experience, and ideas by and large boil down to the formula "let's already earn money"?

"Is parting a little death?"

In business, certainly not. The problem is that you have a mix of personal relationships and business. But even from family life, you can get out, if not remaining friends, then maintaining normal relations. But for this to happen, the “divorce” must be civilized. If you kill all the plates, and then cut the car, skis and the cat in half, it will be bad for both sides of the parting (and the cat will generally be offended to death).

If you have not yet reached the stage of mutual hatred, pushing you to rash actions, it is high time to start the procedure for exiting the business.

How to share - "honestly" or "fairly"?

First of all, it makes sense to determine what role each partner played in the business. This will help to better understand what share is owed to him not according to the law, but "in fairness."

Generally speaking, all business owners can be divided into three groups:

Investors. Those who invested money or other assets in the business, but did not work in the business themselves, simply receiving “dividends”. Either they worked before, but then stopped.

Operators. These are those who invested their labor in the business, became a co-owner of the business and continue to work.

Pros. People who have contributed not only money to the business, but also their labor, working in the business and developing it.

Usually "investors" leave the business - and not always on their own initiative. Often the situation looks something like this - once everything started spinning thanks to the investor's money, if it hadn't been for them, nothing would have happened at all. For this he received his share of the profit. At first there was no profit at all, then it was a penny, then it outgrew the rates of bank deposits, then it outgrew these rates many times.

"Investor" is very happy with this state of affairs - the money was invested successfully. But the partners are much less happy - now the money of the "investor" costs the company much more expensive than any loan, and this is not normal. But if you tell the “investor” about this and propose to somehow rectify the situation, there is a very high probability that this idea will not meet with understanding.

Because from the point of view of the "investor" the situation looks different - when the company was difficult, it worked on his money and he had nothing from it, and when they got promoted, they began to "push" him.

But be that as it may, the problem must be solved. If all parties are determined to come to an agreement, this usually succeeds. When and if a compromise solution is found, there are three most common options for the peaceful "withdrawal" of a partner from business.

Three options for a peaceful parting of partners

The partner buys out the share of the leaving partner

Technically, this is the easiest option, especially if the partners agree with the estimate of this share. In this case, you simply fix by an agreement the amount of payment, the term and other nuances of the transaction (part of the share can be issued by some kind of property, for example). Of course, such ideal situations do not always exist. If you can't agree peacefully - you have a direct road first to lawyers, and then to court.

Partners sell the entire business

It is also a fairly common option - the business is sold as a whole, and then each of the partners comes with their money at their own discretion - someone starts a new business, someone goes to travel.

The option “we sell everything, but we divide the money” is often used if the remaining partner cannot buy out the share of the departing one, the departing partner cannot sell it to a third party, but at the same time the partners have maintained normal relations and their goal is to minimize losses, and not to harm their former friend as much as possible.

Partners divide the business in half

This option is not suitable for every business, but it is also possible. It is generally best used in the service industry. For example, if you have an advertising agency, separation is possible without any formal reorganization procedure at all - one of the partners simply leaves the current business, organizes a new company and takes several employees and some clients there.

If you still decide to do business with friends

But suppose that all of the above did not make much of an impression on you and you decide to "stir up business with your friends."

In this case, we have five tips.

Advice 1. Agree who is in charge here.

Business is not mathematics; several solutions can be correct at once. But you will have to choose one thing - and there must be a person who has the last word. The worst decision-making configuration is 50/50. Does not work.

Tip 2. Divide spheres of influence and responsibility.

It is necessary to immediately identify the areas for which one of the partners is fully responsible. This will allow everyone to feel the importance of their own contribution and no one will have the impression that he works alone, and everyone uses the result.

Tip 3. Agree on goals.

It is not enough to go one way, it is important to strive to achieve one result. Many businesses have collapsed due to the fact that one partner considers the achieved result sufficient and does not want to risk further, while the other perceives the existing result as a stepping stone to a distant goal.

Tip 4. Negotiate a divorce on the eve of the wedding.

In the sense that you need to foresee all the options for the development of events. What happens if one of you gets sick and cannot work? How will you compensate for losses incurred through the fault of one of the partners? What to do if additional investments are required and it will be necessary to attract another partner? What happens if one of the partners dies? The more scenarios you can foresee and discuss, the better. First, you will know how to deal with a difficult situation. Second, the discussion itself will show you how willing you are to cooperate.

Tip 5. Make agreements.

Record all agreements on paper. In detail and point by point. Who is responsible for what, who reports to whom, who gets what share of the profit, how disputable issues are resolved, according to what scheme the partner leaves the business.

No matter how much you trust each other, memory often fails a person. After a couple of years, you may find that each of you remembered the agreements in your own way, and you will be surprised how different these memories can be. Nothing holds a friendship together as well as a competent notary.

Let's summarize

• Doing business with friends is easier at first, then difficult. You can lose both friendship and business.
• Business partners must complement each other's business qualities, this strengthens the team. We chose friends according to other criteria, so business almost inevitably starts to "stumble over friendship." This is an objective process, not a coincidence or malicious intent.
• If you need to disperse, disperse. The principle "endure - fall in love" does not work in business. It will only get worse.
• Don't be overwhelmed by emotions - it's better to keep a piece than to lose everything. And it's better to keep a part than to take revenge and punish.
• If you decide to start a business with friends - agree on everything "on the shore". And formalize it with a written agreement - this is not mutual distrust, this is a demonstration of the seriousness of intentions.