2. Change
Traditional change processes no longer do justice to an increasingly complex and dynamic world. The self-managed leadership concept therefore breaks new ground in terms of a change of pattern (*page 137).
Because complexity will continue to increase and will not decrease again, we are currently assuming a paradigm shift. The approaches presented here mark the beginning rather than the end of a development. It would therefore be negligent to dismiss the development itself as a short-term fad.
2.1 Changed image of man
Humans are social beings and can only survive as a community, which is why we naturally strive to integrate ourselves into communities, to make valuable contributions to the community in order to be recognized and feel secure.
At the same time, people are complex beings with moods, fears, their own ideas, drives, beliefs, inclinations, values, selective perception and an individual construction of reality, which is why our behavior cannot be reliably instructed, controlled, predicted or explained from the outside.
2.1.1 Taylorist view
Tayloristic management is usually based on the assumption that people are inherently lazy and therefore need to be driven and disciplined, for example with instructions, appeals, orders and commands, pressure and fear-mongering.
This approach is not suitable for organizations that want employees who think for themselves and work independently.
2.1.2 Systemic perspective
Systemic organizational theory assumes that instructions and appeals are not suitable for changing people’s behaviour in a foreseeable way. Attempts to specifically change the behavior of people in companies from the outside, for example to make them more entrepreneurial or more responsible, are very likely to fail and are not helpful.
Extrinsic incentives in the form of reward systems, variable salary models, target agreements and even psychological pressure often have a counterproductive effect – people only do what they find meaningful. If they do not consider a given goal to be meaningful, monetary incentives will not make it any more meaningful and the path to achieving it any easier.
Of course, organizations are changed by extrinsic incentives – but rarely in the intended way. The main thing is that theater is produced and people’s integrity is damaged.
The members begin to act out the expected behavior in order to receive a reward or to be left alone. That was enough for Taylorism. For dynamic and complex environments that require everyone involved to think and act on their own responsibility, this is not only inadequate, but downright negligent.
A systemic-constructivist attitude means:
“Every person acts sensibly from their point of view in the respective moment and context.” It is therefore pointless to try to change them in a certain direction. People can be influenced and are dependent on their environment – but the decision to behave in a certain way always lies with the person themselves.
Prime Directive “No matter what we discover: We deeply believe that everyone has worked to the best of their ability, based on current knowledge, skills and abilities, available resources and the current situation.” #[Q3]
2.2 Changed attitude
2.2.1 Constructive attitude
All communication addresses both the content level and the relationship level. This also applies within organizations. Good interpersonal relationships and appropriate appreciative behavior are possible for people who have a strong sense of self-worth and act congruently.
2.2.1.1 Self-esteem
The family therapist Virginia Satir said that every communication contains the power for personal survival, i.e. what a person does to be important or significant. This personal survival depends heavily on the individual’s self-esteem. Satir understood this to mean that each person has positive or negative feelings of their own value and the capacity for self-esteem. This situationally dependent sense of value (self-worth) affects all communication and can be shaken by stress, pressure and the destructive behavior of others.
Especially in our meritocracy, it is important for people to find their place and to mean something. Conversations about work play a key role in determining our daily exchanges and also what place we have in it, how we are treated and what meaning we see in it.
All of this influences us and our self-esteem.
The most frequently asked question when we meet someone is probably: “So, what do you do for a living?” For Satir, “self-esteem is a concept, an attitude, a feeling, an idea and is expressed in a person’s behavior” (p. 39 comm., Self-esteem, Congruence). She uses the metaphor of a vessel as a possible indicator of self-esteem: depending on how it is filled or how it is made, self-worth can be easily read.
2.2.1.2 Language has a physical effect
Virginia Satir For Satir, acting congruently means that we deal honestly with our feelings. This honesty is at the heart of a genuine encounter between people. Congruent communication harmoniously combines verbal communication (words, language, formulations) with non-verbal communication (body posture, muscle tone, breathing rate, tone of voice, expression of the eyes, gestures, touch).
People who do not act congruently often use their relationships as power games or games of win and lose and thus have little opportunity to form really good relationships.
The purpose of power games is to feel powerful. This gives us the feeling of being able to survive, of being strong, even if my self-esteem is rather low. Only when I feel strong can I feel self-esteem.
We externalize all of this through our behaviour, attitude and, in particular, our language. Depending on my self-worth or ability to behave congruently, I create either constructive or destructive behavior or language formulations.
Both lead to new behavior and language. We elevate ourselves above others in our conversations, put others on a kind of pedestal or put them down – but communication does not take place on the same level. The resulting outcomes are rarely sustainable as people continue to feel over/under valued or treat others as such. If we want to empower people to provide self-managed leadership, take personal responsibility and keep the community in mind, we need people who are in their power.
To do this, we need to start communicating congruently with each other and create constructive situations. We need to start treating each other as equals and working together on new, effective solutions.
2.2.1.3 Acting responsibly
We have a responsible choice about how we behave: constructively or destructively.
Recognizing my own energy and ability is the beginning of responsible action with our own decisions. And as soon as we change our language, we automatically begin to change our behavior. In doing so, we change habits and in turn invite others to adapt their behavior to our new habits.
2.2.2 Value orientation
The basic values and principles of self-managed leadership must be consistently demanded by all colleagues and their non-observance must have consequences.
If violations of these values are not communicated bilaterally or collectively, the values lose their value and the principles lose their validity. The organization becomes weak.
If responsibility is not critically accompanied by a social context, the company ends up in mediocrity because more and more members of the organization act according to the principle “I do nothing to you, you do nothing to me”.
What was the violation of rules and instructions in Taylorism, i.e. a lack of discipline, is the violation of values and principles in self-managed organizations.
While instructions are reasonably clear and their violations can be determined objectively (“Bernd was absent for three days without excuse.”), this is much less clear with values and principles and requires a discourse. Nevertheless, values and principles must be enforceable.
Basic values are binding. Anyone who does not share them does not belong.
Fig. Please trigger alarm in case of value and principle violations Q1-287]
Prerequisites
- all members of the organization must accept that basic values are binding and determine belonging.
- the basic values must be found, clarified and updated in a constant discourse: What are our core values? What do they mean?
- all organizational members need at least basic skills for appreciative feedback in order to be able to openly address and clarify possible doubts.
- regularly discover, tell and recall exemplary events or stories of how the organization has dealt with violations of core values and principles in the past, so that every colleague knows what practical and not just hypothetical social risk they would be taking if they violated the core values.
2.2.3 Personal responsibility
Absolute personal responsibility, freedom of design and decision-making in one’s own area of responsibility are a basic principle of self-managed organizations.
As soon as the problems and challenges remain with those who have received them from outside, a corresponding problem-solving competence grows there over time. Perhaps not overnight, but gradually more and more every day.
Personal responsibility does not arise from the appeal that employees should be responsible, but from the fact that they are actually problem owners, i.e. they have to be.
As long as problems – can be passed on for irrelevant reasons, – can be taken away again by colleagues or superiors or – a superior remains responsible for the result, those affected only take limited and conditional responsibility.
Personal responsibility arises from the framework conditions of the work, not by influencing people’s attitudes, values and behavior.
Only those who really own the problem will have their problem-solving skills stimulated and expanded.
It is also relevant whether there is any possibility at all of passing on operational problems.
As long as an employee or group has a superior who has to share responsibility and supervise and control their subordinates, those affected also more or less hand over responsibility to the higher authorities. The question is not whether, but only when, how often and how much.
Who is responsible?
Whoever recognizes a new problem is responsible for solving it and first clarifies: Who is the right problem solver?
If there are obviously other circles, roles or people who are responsible for the problem, then we hand the problem over to them.
However, if these colleagues are not available or cannot be reached in time, the problem remains with the original problem owner. Detached from all cooperation agreements, he can and must then solve it himself.
This is an elementary experience for people who have previously worked in situations of superior responsibility.
Levels of responsibility
We can attribute responsibility to different levels:
– myself as a member of the organization, – myself as the holder of a certain role, – myself as a member of a circle, – other circles, roles or members of the organization, if they can provide a more suitable competence.
Prioritize and sit out
Taking responsibility can also mean choosing to ignore a problem.
Only in this way can the organization, its units and its members protect themselves against overload and remain efficient.