Role change

Mr. Müller, off the top of your head, what is the most common starting mistake?

Young managers have the advantage that they can still look at things without entrenched patterns, address problems and act without frills. However, they meet colleagues and employees who do not enjoy being told by a newcomer that everything they have done so far has been wrong. If someone comes along and says, or even just lets you know, "Now we're going to do everything completely differently and finally properly!", he will trigger resistance. If he then sees in these resistances only a sign of the eternally outdated, he has overlooked the fact that there were at all times good reasons to decide and act in this or that way. Respect for what was and is, and appreciation of what has been achieved so far are elementary prerequisites for a good continuation of the work in progressively one's own way of seeing and acting. The same applies to the careful treatment of the predecessor in word and deed.

What do these resistances look like?

In his or her new position, the young supervisor must never overlook the fact that some of the employees will show solidarity with the predecessor even if

Respect for achievements

this one had a bad reputation. The old supervisor was, so to speak, the usual. Every new superior must be aware of the fact that the change of the boss causes fear and insecurity. If this is not considered in everyday dealings, or if this fear and insecurity is even fuelled with thoughtless remarks, it will trigger superficial opportunism and yes-saying, but in reality it will make people lonely or even lead them to be undermined. In other words, employees will want to prove to a boisterous young supervisor that they can do without him, based on their advantage in process and expertise. And experienced employees are usually good at letting inexperienced supervisors off the hook.

So when it comes to the first steps, what matters most?

In addition to respect for past performance and the people acting before and today, above all, to ask questions and seriously want to understand what the employees do and why. This includes taking care of "the whole person". The young supervisor should already know a little more about the employees than that they come to work in the morning and leave in the evening. The more they know about private circumstances, demands and limitations, the more likely they are to be able to assign appropriate and manageable tasks and set expectations.

Aren't young leaders overwhelmed by this?

I am well aware that they are in a difficult situation. Especially for them, personal access is particularly difficult at the beginning. But there are possibilities for informal encounters and community care that are elementary for this topic. Essential is

PersonalValue

This means dealing with employees and their tasks as quickly and seriously as possible, recognising connections and restrictions and - very importantly - appreciating performance. This should not be reserved for formal procedures such as performance appraisals and annual appraisal interviews, but should take place promptly and spontaneously. Those who are afraid that praise will immediately trigger new demands on the employee have overlooked the fact that personal appreciation is usually far more motivating than a salary increase.

How do you then succeed in growing together with the new employees to form an efficient performance community?

An exciting balancing act is now called for here, which is generally the charm and difficulty of leadership. The new role must be accepted. It is no use at all to signal to the employees: "I am one of you!", or even to show solidarity with the employees against "those up there". So, it needs the awareness to be the leader. But at the same time, the young supervisor must be careful not to become an "official hierarchy" that becomes more and more self-important the more secure it becomes, listens less and less, and determines more and more by position. It is therefore important to involve everyone, to listen to the arguments, but to have the courage to have the last word.

So demonstrating strength is not wrong ...

It is always interesting to hear that employees very much want to have a strong boss who sets clear guidelines and goals, stays on track and also defends the course internally and upwards. That means predictability and with it the chance to engage and see results. Wimps and turncoats confuse employees, diminish the value of their performance and ultimately lead to resignation. Linked to this is a key aspect of good leadership: delegation that places trust in the employee and includes the triad of task, competence and responsibility. Many bosses delegate only what they don't like to do themselves or what is a nuisance to them. And they take the successes of the team for themselves and leave the failures with the employee. Such bosses drive away good people!

Mr. Müller, a young supervisor also wants and needs to prove himself "upwards".

The difficulty of positioning "upwards" begins with the question of how much time to give the young manager. Unfortunately, I experience that people first talk about a year of development time and then after one month in the new task, the question arises as to where the visible successes are. For the young manager, the task then becomes "How do I lead my boss?

And how can young supervisors influence their image?

They can very well do something about how they are seen. If I proactively report what I've just done, what I'm working on and what I'm up to, that's one side. But if I also report difficulties in a timely manner before they get to the supervisor without my intervention, that's being sovereign. The superior will usually be grateful not to have been surprised or caught on the wrong foot by his own boss. And it is also a sign of "young wisdom" to ask the boss and involve him in order to learn from his experience and knowledge - factual and tactical.

How do they manage to slowly but surely give themselves a distinctive "face"?

Here I am observing a pleasing change in the younger generation of managers. I'm seeing a tendency towards authenticity there, which I more than welcome. In concrete terms, this means that facade pushing, docking and looking good at all costs and at the expense of others are going a little out of fashion. Instead, many younger leaders are trying to shine through commitment and competence. However, as mentioned earlier, this needs to be shown in the appropriate place. That's why young managers in particular should take advantage of every opportunity to take the "stage": to make an appearance in front of the board, to present at a meeting, even to give a talk externally. The more positive images come together, the more likely it is that the face and name will stick with the corresponding memory effect in the right place.

Doesn't the way you behave towards yourself also play a significant role in preventing you from unexpectedly slipping down the career ladder?

I consider this point to be extremely important, and the current figures on issues such as burn-out, depression, psychosomatic illnesses and partnership problems are linked to an ongoing "tapering off" of these phenomena. A good leader is also good to himself. A young boss should not prove that he can pack 12 to 14 hours every day, but that he can manage his workload in ten hours. And he should not explain the next morning with a dog's face how hard he has it, but appear balanced and fresh. The young manager should also always ask himself whether he can still be with himself and take care of himself in this company and in this position.

From your perspective and experience, what weakens young supervisors the most when dealing with themselves?

In our multimedia and globalised society, we are experiencing a creeping process of permanent mental availability. This includes remaining reachable on vacation, in the evening, on weekends and

Discuss problems openly

in international business transactions for the Asians already shortly after midnight and for the Americans until shortly before midnight. Anyone who does not set limits here is on the path to self-sacrifice. In addition, we have various channels of communication, in addition to telephone, SMS and e-mail, also various social networks. This means not only time, but above all mental strain.

Humans are not designed for continuous operation?

Not at all. My impression is that many decisions are being corrected at ever shorter notice and on an ongoing basis not only because the environment is changing so quickly, but also because no one has any more time to think about it. For me, the question always arises as to what the individual himself can contribute. For me, this includes not bombarding my employees with news and thus showing them that things are different for me, too. And, for example, not scheduling and allowing a flood of meetings with unclear agendas and interminable discussions. So I also watch over myself by taking care of the others, by treating them with care.

When does ambition become a danger and a trap?

When I'm already thinking about the next career step while I'm just starting my new position. In other words, if I only see my current job as a stepping stone instead of arriving there internally. There is also a certain tendency in some companies to send promising junior staff straight on again after the first major success or a successfully completed project. Sometimes this is even linked to personal goals on the part of the managers. Before someone has gained a foothold in his responsibility, he cannot even judge how long he should mature there until the next step. And he does not see the consequences of his actions, neither professionally nor personally. In the end, he does not become a personality,

Be good to yourself

but remains a functionary and puppet. So it needs long enough stages to become responsible for his actions and sovereign as a superior.