We are in the year 1994. As a much too young internet entrepreneur, my core competence lies in composing a few lines of HTML to create an extremely ugly website. This is complex and great, setting me apart from the ignorant rest of humanity. What I do not anticipate is that something much more complex will come my way one day: employees!
Most leaders are not prepared to suddenly be in charge. I also did not think much about my first employee, I just needed someone to take some work off my hands. Others are similarly caught off guard. "Take care of this one!" is what you hear one morning, and suddenly you have an intern to deal with. Then, you are a leader, dealing with people, and you must not make any mistakes. How exactly does that work? No one really reveals that, because leading people requires possessing many very good qualities that can sometimes conflict with one another. Will this work out?
1. Clarity versus Empathy
When we talk about leadership, we mean leading employees, teams, and entire companies. As well as organizing all the necessary tasks and services for this purpose. Always with the goal of achieving maximum success with minimal effort.
Everyone will agree that the associated leadership of people must be of the utmost clarity. Employees are entitled to supervisors who speak plainly and whose actions are consistent and goal-oriented. What would be thought of a leader who expresses themselves in a convoluted manner, is unclear in their instructions, and behaves inconsistently? Clarity is essential for a leader, just like "amen" in church. Not every leader lives up to this fundamental requirement, but this does not change the importance of this quality.
Unfortunately, speaking plainly can sound harsh quickly, and that does not go over well. Especially since in a company, one should not come across as a general who only gives commands. The times are long gone when one could afford to act that way, especially since qualified individuals are becoming scarcer. Don't forget, employees are volunteers and they will quickly leave if they feel bossed around. A modern leadership style is always characterized by a constructive togetherness. In this context, brief clarity can sometimes be detrimental.
Therefore, it is advisable for a leader to be always self-controlled, friendly, and empathetic. Good manners are also very helpful. In short: politeness in expression and demeanor, but clarity in the matter. As one might suspect, it is necessary to reconcile both. It sounds easy, but it is not.
2. Culture of Failure versus Perfectionism
People are now allowed to fail, which is why the term "culture of failure" is often used. Americans are supposedly very good at it, Germans not so much. In a lived culture of failure, we immerse ourselves in a creative world of experimentation. We do not take ourselves too seriously and, together with others, joyfully experiment to find good solutions. And if we stumble along the way, well, shit happens.
Perhaps it is an excess of this attitude that often leads us to beta versions of what could be good ideas. Products that make users unwitting guinea pigs. Unfortunately, there was no time, competition, costs, you know. Nevertheless, a culture of failure is highly recommended, as many conventional business models are currently being scrutinized. In this situation, new solutions can only emerge from those who think the unthinkable and try it out. It is unavoidable to occasionally fall flat on one's face.
However, the culture of failure has its limits. Either because the R&D process is associated with extremely high costs or because the end result simply does not allow for errors. In medical technology, transportation, or the operation of a nuclear facility, mistakes are just not acceptable. Failure is not an option where life and limb could be at risk.
The challenge of leadership is to find the right balance here. Depending on the industry and work area, this can vary from day to day. Therefore, those who demand a culture of failure across the board are just as wrong as those who strive for relentless perfectionism. The concept of a "survivable mistake" has become a common phrase that one would hardly accept, especially as an airplane passenger.
Therefore, the ideal culture of failure is a culture of experimentation and optimistic trial and error. Failure is allowed, derogatory criticism is avoided, and learning from mistakes is encouraged. However, what a culture of failure must never be is a blanket justification for poor performance. The competitive drive to do things well must remain.
No surprise: There is no perfect way out-of-the-box solution. Every product, every company, every area of performance has its own profile within which failure is possible or can be accepted. And by the way, it would also be nice to let others fail without adding one's two cents. That is called human greatness.
3. Agility versus Planning
A much-used leadership buzzword is the demand for "agility." This means being nimble enough to spontaneously change direction once a course has been set. Some call it aimless, others call it Scrum. In times of diverse upheavals, the desire for agility is completely justified. But how do you turn a cumbersome tanker into a swift speedboat?
The question therefore is, do we even need a long-term plan if we already know that circumstances – and hence the plan – are always changing rapidly. I believe everyone will agree with me: Without a somewhat sophisticated master plan, leading a company is not possible. The art lies more in finding the right balance between planning and agility.
There is certainly no lack of agile challenges. At the same time, almost nothing is more difficult than opening up successful organizations to change. This applies to small companies as well as large ones. Look at the automotive industry: Volkswagen, Daimler, BMW, they are all heavy tankers navigating towards an unknown future, in a constant struggle to find the right balance between holding onto the proven and inevitable change. For them, failure is not an option, as it is a matter of life or death, of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and of the German location. And yet, failure is possible.
Conclusion (who would have thought?!): One cannot do away with planning or be permanently hyper-agile. People need plans as guidelines, otherwise they act aimlessly. But even the best plan requires flexibility. If the path ahead is blocked, one must be ready to turn. However, if you do not want to end up in the ditch, you should prepare for it and plan your own agility. This is where the cat bites its own tail. In short, planning and agility are two sides of the same coin. They cannot do without each other.
4. Sense of Purpose versus Being Concise
Explaining plans is typically a job for bosses, often in great detail. Employees then nod to themselves: "The boss loves to hear himself talk again." "Keep it brief," was written on phone booths in the past, the older ones remember. When there were no cell phones, let alone smartphones, people used to stand in line outside while someone inside had an extensive local call. Being concise is a valued virtue in social interactions: Get to the point.
The question is, what is the right measure? Here too, we are faced with a contradiction in daily life. On the one hand, employees demand that leaders convey the background of a decision to them – and thus a sense of purpose. This can sometimes take a while and test the patience of the workforce. However, if this is omitted and the decision is presented briefly and succinctly, one is a bad boss, perhaps even a general who does not involve their volunteers (see 1.) but sends them to the front lines without warm words.
I understand every leader who daily seeks the right balance in meetings with question marks in their head. My advice: Be aware that your employees need to be addressed, but get to the point.
Beware of the babble trap: Every person is different. One person craves background knowledge, while another finds a complete sentence before their morning routine too much. To do a task well, one needs context, but even that has two sides: one that likes to listen and one that likes to explain, but please in a constant exchange of roles. Whether a leader or an employee, BOTH must be able to talk and listen. This is called dialogue.
5. Day-to-Day Operations versus Strategy
Once the purpose of something is conveyed, the question arises of implementation into good routines. The so-called day-to-day operations, that is, reliably carrying out the things that make us successful, are wrongly considered banal and counterproductive. Yet, 365 day-to-day operations strung together are nothing but a successful business year. I consider a lively day-to-day operation to be a sign of a vital company in any case.
Contrary to this is the need to establish strategic management with long-term future scenarios. Day-to-day operations indeed have a sticky quality that binds one in urgent small details and distracts from longer-term planning. I do not think anyone will disagree with me when I demand: For strategic action and thinking, one MUST carve out time in day-to-day operations and grant this to their employees. Seminars work wonderfully. Or lonely mountain pastures – I know of one in the South Tyrolean Passeier Valley. The main thing is to let go and get out of the office. Otherwise, the urgent small details will once again fish you out of the hallway.
What remains is the eternal struggle: Holding one's own during the day – or being the woman – and being and remaining visionary the rest of the time, even when the tree is on fire.
Speakers
