The mindset decides

"We want to become more customer-oriented." "We want to become more innovative." "We want to become more agile." Companies proclaim development goals like these all the time - not as an end in themselves. There are business goals behind them. For example: We want to achieve more sales and a higher return on investment. Or: We want to secure the existence of our company.

So the companies are redesigning their organization. In addition, they train their employees top-down in the working methods that they believe are necessary to achieve the goals: for example, in "design thinking". But after a while, they are often frustrated to discover that although a lot has happened in our organization, we have not achieved our goal - for example, to become more agile - and certainly not the overriding goal of securing the company's long-term success.

Companies lag behind the development

There are many reasons why this often happens. For example, in the VUKA world change

• the framework conditions for action, and
• the (technical) possibilities to solve problems, and thus also
• customer needs

so rapidly that companies - at least in their perception - are actually always lagging behind developments. At the same time, the rapid change results in such a great need for change and learning that it is increasingly difficult to grasp and satisfy top-down.

Companies have certainly reacted to this. For example, all the management systems that have been in vogue in recent decades - regardless of whether they were called CIP, TQM, Kaizen, Six Sigma or Lean Management - have always had one goal: work should be more closely oriented to the needs of the customer. And in order to achieve this goal, it was also always propagated to shift more decision-making power to the employee and team level. And closely linked to this was the demand: Leadership must change; managers must see themselves as enablers and empowerers of their employees.

Accordingly, many initiatives to bring about such a cultural change have been taken in most (larger) companies. That's why it seems absurd to those affected when, as some New Work evangelists are currently doing, for example, a distorted picture of leadership in companies is painted on the wall, based purely on the command-obedience principle, and emphasizes: "The mindset must change radically."

Companies are unsettled Such distorted images are striking. But they no longer correspond to operational reality - at least in the core areas of companies. Nevertheless, there is currently a deep sense of insecurity at the top in many companies when it comes to the question: How should our (collaborative) work be structured in the future? This can be seen, for example, in the fact that the term "holocracy" has been circulating in management discussions for some years now. It describes a non-hierarchical form of organization in which the organization consists of a large number of independent units, so-called "holons". The members of the "holons" have no managers or superiors who tell them what to do. Rather, they make decisions largely on their own within the framework of agreed-upon overarching goals. So far, so good.

So far, this form of organization has only been implemented in non-profit organizations and small start-ups. And of the twelve organizations that Frederic Laloux named in his 2014 book "Reinventing Organizations" as proof of the concept's feasibility, ten have returned to traditional top-down management.

Self-organisation also requires leadership

The central reason for this is: In larger organizations, the work of individual units - whether they are called divisions, teams, or holons - is always related to higher-level goals and an overall strategy that results from them. And the decisions linked to them have to be made and communicated. This is why larger organizations always need some form of hierarchy and leadership. Otherwise, employees lack the necessary support and orientation, which is also indispensable for largely self-determined work. The fact that the holocracy idea nevertheless meets with such a sustained response shows the great uncertainty that exists among many organizational developers.

The same applies to agile working methods. They are often presented as the solution to all the problems of companies in the digital age - among other things because they also rely on an extensive transfer of decision-making powers to the employees or teams so that they can act on their own responsibility. However, this presupposes a certain degree of maturity on the part of the employees and teams. This must be specifically promoted by managers and companies.

Agile methods are not a panacea In practice, so-called agile scaling - i.e. the transfer of agile working methods to entire companies - fails not only because some of the agile principles (see box), such as incremental working, can only be implemented to a very limited extent in some areas of the company.

More importantly, agile, i.e. largely self-determined, work requires employees to have a high level of technical expertise as well as a pronounced ability to manage and organize themselves. They must also have a high level of intrinsic self-motivation. Many employees do not (yet) have this bundle of skills and characteristics, or only have them in relation to certain (partial) tasks.

Therefore, a so-called agile leadership in everyday business without reservations is actually only possible

• employees who already have a high level of routine in carrying out their tasks and who are committed, and
• for employees who, for example, are integrated into team structures that supportively compensate for certain technical and motivational deficits that still exist in them. All others need a leadership that accompanies the development process of the employees, which shows itself in a sometimes more, sometimes less directing and supportive behavior.

Mindset is the key to success

The question remains why many employees find it so difficult to work in a largely self-determined and self-organized manner, even though companies have already made many efforts to increase their competence in this regard. A central point is: In the past, many companies imparted a great deal of methodological knowledge to their employees as part of their initiatives to change the corporate culture; however, it was not uncommon for too little attention to be paid to communicating why largely self-determined working is necessary in the first place, which aims to change the mindset, i.e. the attitudes of the employees.

or example, only a few companies specifically confronted their employees with what was happening in the markets - for example

• in the emerging markets,
• with the technology leaders,
• in related industries or
• at the companies that slept through the market development - to convey to them why employees working independently and responsibly are necessary for the success of companies today. Only a few also conveyed to them with the necessary plasticity what paradigm shifts are taking place in business and society, which is why change projects today have a different character than projects in the past - even if certain core messages such as "Leadership must change" and "Our employees must work more independently" sound largely identical.

Strengthening the backbone of management

The same applies to managers. In many companies, they are highly insecure - also because they increasingly do not know to what extent leadership or managers will still be needed in their companies in the future.

This is also due to the companies. In recent years, their top decision-makers have not infrequently rhapsodized about holocracy as the organizational form of the future, instead of sending a clear message to their executives: "Leadership is becoming increasingly important in the digital age and in the VUKA world, because who or what else is supposed to give employees the desired support and the necessary orientation in a corporate context in which everything is under scrutiny?" And instead of pushing executive education in times when almost everything is in upheaval, many companies have put executive development programs on hold. Accordingly, it would currently be important in many companies to emphatically convey to managers again how important they and their work are for the company's success, because: Without strong - i.e. convincing, employee-engaging - managers, companies will find it difficult to succeed in the digital transformation.

Leadership requires a high degree of behavioural flexibility

Corresponding initiatives are also necessary because managers need a high level of self-reflection and self-leadership skills, especially in an environment characterized by strong change. In this environment, they must constantly adapt their leadership behavior flexibly and agilely to the development of the respective employee or team as well as the respective situation. Accordingly, in addition to sensitivity to the actual situation, the behavioral flexibility and self-reflection ability of managers must be high. And they need to be qualified for this - in a similar way as they themselves should do in relation to their employees within the framework of their function.

This means that, as with employees, management development measures should be in line with the level of development of managers and their current or future function. They should also challenge them, but not overtax them, because only then will they mature over time into the self-confident leaders that companies need at all levels in the VUKA world and in the digital age.