How do organizations change?

On Swiss Quality Day, he will be speaking about "Change Trends in Organizations". What could the professor of organization and innovation focus on in times like these - where companies are becoming more ratiocinated than ever, and employees are becoming more versatile, hybrid and mobile at the same time?

Prof. Dr. Jens O. Meissner at the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts focuses on organisational resilience, on how organisations deal productively with setbacks and crises and take this into account, for example, in innovation management and their leadership culture.

Mr. Meissner, are hierarchies still in keeping with the times?
On the one hand, technological developments allow more options in the design of work. On the other hand, the digitalized forms of work put the individual and his or her needs at the center. This has corresponding effects on the organisation of companies; traditional organisational structures and solutions are being called into question, and employees as well as the competitive situation on the market are calling for new approaches.

There are completely new approaches to introduce a "learning organization" without hierarchies. What path could a Swiss company take without a lot of human resources?
Even if it seems otherwise at the moment, the "learning organization" is conceptually nothing new. It raises the question of a perennial issue: in principle, it is necessary to encourage the personal initiative of employees.

"Identification with a task is the highest good."

employees. However, this requires management to pursue the balance between corporate vision and individuality. Traditional hierarchies in particular slow down success because they prevent networked working.

Today, so-called "hybrid professionals" usually only choose jobs that align with their sense of purpose.

Today's employees regularly benefit from soft boundaries between corporate and, if you will, ideological spheres. I also observe that decision-makers bring insights, knowledge, many areas of their own commitment to the company as a whole.

But how do you convince financially dependent employees of this "freedom of choice"?
I consider current developments such as the digitalization of the economy to be more revolutionary than previous economic upheavals. In this rapid change, routine can quickly become passé. To answer your question:

Per se, the identification with a work task is at the same time the highest good, but also the greatest challenge of a manager to fill the company vision with life in the long term. If the boss wants to retain an experienced employee, he should certainly be able to offer him flexible and combinable contract components.

There are also new approaches such as 'Holacracy', where employees are involved in project assignments in companies that are free of hierarchy.

This sounds plausible, but not all companies work like advertising agencies. How could smaller SMEs or NPOs succeed in positioning themselves in a more contemporary way?
Small and medium-sized companies have the edge because of their close relationships, high flexibility and willingness to be a global leader in their specific market segment. NPOs are also very well positioned in Switzerland because there is a socially rich context for them in Switzerland.

Both types of organization are contemporary, because they counteract the very dubious, purely shareholder-profit oriented economy with a meaningful component. However, SMEs can usually still optimise their attitude to inter-company cooperation. NPOs usually have room for improvement in the flexibility of their structures and processes.

Already in ancient times, a "system of partial chance" was practiced in filling leadership positions. -How do you, a systemic innovation researcher, assess such strategies?
Nobody really knows how organizations could elect the best brains to the top in the future. In Asia, artificial intelligence is already being consulted at management meetings. In my opinion, this system of random selection (one part of the members is elected, the other part is drawn at random) has the advantage that there are fewer people at the top of an organization who are driven by hubris. This hubris was already a risk for companies and states. The trend to rationalize away this coincidence more and more results in a further drifting apart of "top and bottom" in society. This is a dangerous development to observe.

What systems or leadership skills are needed in dynamic organizations?
I am convinced that the described hybridity on labour markets ultimately also requires a coherent whole. However, in the digitalised world, small gestures of character are also becoming increasingly important.

Because while the small players in the economy are being swept away by corporations like Amazon, Zalando, Alibaba or Uber, there is still a need for companies that maintain small-scale customer relationships and drive innovation.