Challenge: living in hybrid cultures

Agility - this has been the buzzword in management discussions in recent years. And rightly so! Because in the VUKA world, which is characterized by rapid changes and decreasing predictability, companies must react faster and more flexibly to market changes and often develop completely new strategies and problem solutions.

Most companies have recognized this. Accordingly, they have taken many initiatives to increase the agility of their organization and to create a corresponding mindset among their employees. Often, there was no elaborate strategy behind them; rather, the change initiatives had the character of trial balloons - also because the top management of many companies often did not know themselves where the journey in their industry was going in the medium and long term due to the fundamental transformations in the economy and society. Examples include the financial and automotive sectors.

The "DNA" of agility

Agility is based on the idea of integrating the employees at the operational level, i.e. where the work happens, into the control and taking them into responsibility. Decisions are thus made "bottom-up" instead of "top-down". Concepts such as personal responsibility and self-leadership are fundamental ideas in agile organizations. This is intended to ensure that teams adapt quickly to changes and react to them. Leadership takes on a different meaning in this context. It develops into a support of the teams. The boss is more of a "coach" than an "instructor".

Agile structures develop their full potential in environments where new things are to be created. For example, agile teams come into their own in product development.

The limits of agility

But how do agile teams deal with downsizing? What happens when all teams are no longer "financially viable"? What happens when a team is no longer economically viable and has to be dissolved? In such situations, it becomes apparent that self-organized teams have a natural inhibition to press the "self-destruct button". In phases of growth or restructuring, this is not necessary. In a phase of cutbacks, however, it is sometimes necessary. Then it is a typical task of leadership to set priorities and also make unpleasant decisions for the "good of the whole", but also with consequences for the individual.

The leadership dilemma

Quite a few companies are currently in this situation: Their sales and earnings as well as incoming orders are stagnating, if not actually declining. So greater financial discipline is called for. The question must be asked more sharply again: What is indispensable for the success of the company, and what can we do without? And not infrequently, cost-cutting is the order of the day for all initiatives whose relevance to the company's success is rather low. Even the topic of staff reductions is back on the agenda of a growing number of companies.

This means that top management has to steer more strongly again, because

• no area cuts its budget on its own initiative and
• no agile (project) team decides on its own: "We're disbanding" - for example, because other things are currently more urgent.

Such decisions have to be made by top management, and they are currently often made by them. This often leads to conflicts, especially in companies that have been pushing the topics of agility and personal responsibility in recent years, and to those affected complaining: "In recent years, we have always been asked to make decisions and act more independently, and now we are being given strict guidelines again. This makes it difficult for top management to win over the people affected as comrades-in-arms in turnaround projects, for example.

Thinking in "both/and" categories

The top management of not a few (large) companies is currently facing the following dilemma:

• On the one hand, companies must become more agile in the rapidly changing VUKA world and therefore shift more decision-making power to the operational level. And: On the other hand, top-down decisions must be made by management - among other things, to ensure that all initiatives in the company are aligned with the common overarching goals and that the always limited resources are used effectively.

Companies must develop a hybrid culture, so to speak, in which a pragmatic "both/and" applies instead of a dogmatic "either/or", because at least larger organisations cannot be managed successfully in the VUKA world in any other way.

Conveying this awareness to employees is not easy - also because in the VUKA world, so-called "black swans", i.e. unforeseeable events or events that are difficult to foresee, more frequently render the plans of top management obsolete. So they have to rethink and correct their decisions more often. This often gives those affected the feeling: "Those up there don't know themselves where the journey is going." This can quickly result in demotivation.

Strengthening managers instead of unsettling them

Companies can only avoid such a development if they have strong managers who repeatedly explain to their employees in their everyday work why certain things are necessary. This is why companies should once again push ahead with their management development, which they have often put on hold in recent years - also so that managers learn to deal well with the leadership paradox of top-down and bottom-up in day-to-day operations.