References

Some of my clients:

Consulting industry:

1. BCG, Zürich
2. Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen
3. Deloitte, Zürich
4. EY, Düsseldorf, Zürich
5. Iskander Business Partner, Düsseldorf, München
6. Michelin, Clermont-Ferrand
   
7. Motel One, München
8. Ramboll, Kopenhagen
9. Ritterwald, Berlin
10. Roland Berger, Amsterdam, Beirut, Brüssel, Buenos Aires, Casablanca, Chicago, Dubai, Istanbul, Kiew, London, Moskau, München, Paris, Peking, Pune, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, Singapur
11. Sixt, München
12. Stern Stewart, München
13. STI, München
14. Universitätsmedizin Greifswald
15. Universitätsklinikum Rechts der Isar
16. Verlagsgruppe von Holtzbrinck, Stuttgart
17. Volkswagen Consulting, Wolfsburg
18. WDT Garbsen
19. Dr. Wieselhuber & Partner, München

Automotive & Mobility:

1. Borgers, Bocholt
2. KET, München
3. Miba, Laakirchen (A)
4. Michelin, Clermont-Ferrand, Paris
5. Sixt, Fort Lauderdale, Pullach
6. Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg
7. Webasto, München

Healthcare & Pharma:

1. Allgemeines Krankenhaus Celle, Celle
2. Allgemeines Krankenhaus Peine, Peine
3. Gematik, Berlin
4. Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover
5. Takeda, Berlin
6. Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald

Media:

1. Pilot, Hamburg
2. Verlagsgruppe von Holtzbrinck, Stuttgart
3. Zeit-Verlag, Hamburg

Internet:

1. Doctolib, Berlin
2. MyHammer, Berlin
3. Parship, Hamburg

Retail market:

1. Flaconi, Berlin
2. WDT, Garbsen
3. Tierarzt24, Garbsen

Banking & Insurances:

1. Swiss Life, Hannover, München
2. HypoPlus AG, Zürich

Hospitality industry:

1. MotelOne, München

Mechanical engineering:

1. RENA, Freiburg

Safety engineering:

1. Plath, Hamburg

On „Interviewing techniques
Participants‘s statements taken from a client’s survey:

What they liked:

1. The content
2. Instant Feedback and possibility to ask any question
3. Good atmosphere
4. Iterative and open discussions
5. Helpful comments for application in real world situations
6. Relevance – suggested questions will help me in my daily life
7. Very short and efficient training
8. The Trainer was very knowledgeable and entertaining. She provided new insights on interviewing behaviour and additionally provided practical examples
9. Very hands-on oriented training with great insights for an effective interviewing
10. Very knowledgeable trainer, practical insights, highly recommend
11. Good team exercises
12. Very interesting content: Content not only supportive for interviewing but also for client handling situation (body language, discussion techniques)
13. Very good and experienced trainer
14. Live training with the test candidates, very good examples by the trainer, excellent Q&A sessions with the trainer (e.g. how should I react when ...)
15. Direct 1 on 1 feedback from coach
16. Motivated, very friendly and experienced trainer

To improve:

1. More practice time
2. More practical sessions (was just the one day training)
3. More exercises regarding body language
4. It would be also nice to have an introduction to the biostructures (another training provided by Angelika) as it would help others to get a more comprehensive overview
5. Perhaps one more candidate
6. Some more training sessions
7. Training could be also on 3 days instead of only 2

The assessment of 20 trainings is 4.84 out of 5.00 points for the trainer’s quality. The range went from 4.69 to 5.00 points as average results of the different trainings.

The methods are ranked 4.65 of 5.00 points. The range was 4.3 to 4.92 as an average of the different trainings.

On „Client Communication“
Participant‘s statements taken from a client’s survey:

What they liked:

1. Trainer/colleagues/good mixture of content/theory/role plays
2. Highly experienced trainer
3. Role playing
4. Discussion with the other seminar members
5. Illustrative examples
6. Learning for professional life and private life
7. Structure according to the needs of the seminar participants
8. The real time exercises
9. Trainer Angelika Moritz is authentic, full of knowledge and a great speaker. The topics can be applied one to one in professional and private life.
10. Trustful atmosphere within the team
11. The seminar was individually tailored to the participants
12. The seminar leader has extensive knowledge and was able to respond individually to questions and problem-solving approaches
13. The coach was highly interested in working on daily examples/conflict situations/real-life experience.
14. The appropriate balance between exercise and theoretical material was achieved.
15. The schedule, the 2 days did not appear to be overfilled with input, you really could learn how to deal with your own personality and the client's personality
16. Angelika. She's such a great trainer. The topic is also very helpful.
17. No preference, everything was perfect!

To improve:

1. Two days is not enough for the communication training, the time spent in the classroom was highly intense and the amount of new information was more than a human brain can accept and process at this short time.
2. Nothing to improve!
3. The second day was a little teacher-centred. Too much verbal information. Very interesting though! Some of the things I don't have in the handout.

The assessment of 13 trainings is 4.96 out of 5.00 points for the trainer’s quality. The range went from 4.82 to 5.00 points as average results of the different trainings.

The methods are ranked 4.98 of 5.00 points. The range was 4.3 to 5.00 as an average of the different trainings.