Schlagwort-Archive: Decisiveness

Pretending to lead

As long as one is mentally stuck in the previous millennium, one tries to ensure an outdated claim to leadership, although we have completely different framework conditions nowadays. More than 7.7 billion people, and over half of them are surfing the Internet. This means that we are only one click away from each other. In the interest of reducing the complexity, the resulting oppressive transparency leads to the formation of information bubbles. This strong networking is not only impacting everyday global life, but also the work within the boundaries of the company. The old head start of knowledge is power is slipping away from managers due to the fact that the sources are available to everyone. When in doubt, employees are better informed than their superiors. The claim to leadership is additionally challenged by new, self-determined approaches of cooperation: agile organization, holacracy, sociocracy, liberated companies. It makes sense that, in this situation, managers are looking for ways to act as if they still pulled all the strings.

If you carefully observe your own environment, you will find everywhere examples of leaders, who no longer know, what their raison d’être is. You can recognize them by the following examples.

  • Simulating decisiveness through goals
    An important function is to decisively set goals and stand up for them. This begins with verbal commitments to a goal: “I am firmly committed to ensuring that we think about how we should get involved in this matter in a foreseeable future.” And extends to targets that are so far in the future that decision-makers will neither take responsibility for the results nor will they even be available – “CO2 neutrality by 2050! “
    This is done in both cases as if something has been decided. In fact, the possible effects of such a decision are uncertain or in the far future, so that the decision-makers cannot be held responsible for the failure.
  • Lengthy alignments
    As the target groups observe every step of the decision makers, it is key to give the impression that one is actively working on a solution. Therefore, the influencing groups should be involved, and work on a consensus in joint discussion sessions. For this purpose, meetings are made on various topics, which should generate written agreements within a week.
    More and more often there is just enough time for a minimal consensus, which, however, requires all participants that they concede certain points. To do this, you have to overrun the timeframe, work in night shifts and then show the result after the deadline has run out. The appearance of effort is thus preserved, and the modest compromise is revaluated.
  • Distraction through finger pointing
    To counter any criticism from the outset, one simply accuses others of providing false information, abusing their power and manipulating the public. That way, the accusations of the opponents are preempted, and puts the ball for the time being in the opponent’s field. If the opponents then justify themselves, the criticism is distracted, and one is seen as a good negotiator.
    Fatally, the reference to smoke suggests the public to believe that there is a fire. Whether invented or true cannot be immediately comprehended. Later rectifications are not able to let vanish the invented facts. It is sufficient to be the first to see smoke.
  • Proclaiming sovereignty
    Professional demagogues eventually use the return to self-esteem. The own opinion is underlined and placed before all other points of view. With America first, this can be implemented, because the message is understandable and desired by the target audience – because they have no idea what it means to them. And since this approach works so well in the USA, others are now starting to catch up. And the people who follow this path celebrate themselves as saviors and strong leaders.
    Sovereignty and exclusion create a sense of “we” in one’s own group that exploits the “We are good – the others bad”. In order to set an effective starting point, one terminates existing contracts and expects at the same time the previous rights – without the corresponding obligations. Your own group pays the bill, as the misappropriated disadvantages only become visible afterwards.

Bottom line: Here, leadership is less an action than a semblance that sets the target groups in motion. After decisions have been made, changes should occur. However, changes are not foreseeable if they are in the far future, if lengthy alignments create an ineffective consensus, if blaming people for the own weaknesses distract and if propaganda fogs the audience. Fatally, those affected do not notice that decisions are being avoided – if you don’t decide anything, you don’t do anything wrong. Hopefully the target groups will wake up from the sleep of the innocent and remember that they are demanding decisions for their own benefit. Pretending to lead is no longer enough.

Actually they want change. Or not?

The way into the future is a daring venture that requires constantly decisions, because it is full of unforeseeable bifurcations. Some decisions are easy. People can also let themselves be drifted. There are also moments, which provide alternatives that are not sufficient for them. As soon as the change pressure cannot be taken any longer, they actively care to get off the predefined path. Financial and personnel resources will be planned and the commitment for change will be announced. Actually it looks like they want change. Or not?

Veränderer01

It is an extreme adventure, if one dares a leap from an outdated state into an uncertain future. The insecurity about the result creates a high risk. In order to make that leap, a defined precondition is the will for change. At the same time such projects offer the opportunity for a large career jump – potentially upward or downward. The consequence is to be torn between the reachable success and the deep abyss that opens up after a failure. Is it surprising that the responsible executives lack a certain continuity and consequence? What do the change leaders need, in order to be successful?

  • A clear conception of the future
    Change without a target is evolutionary shift, which is determined by the context and can only be affected indirectly. To pull off you need a vision that conveys the destination in such a way, as if it is already reached. Packed into a plausible story the way becomes visible that leads towards the goal.
  • The enthusiasm for the future
    Responsible executives must burn for this future in order to ignite the other people. The enthusiasm does not only show up in a positive snapshot of the future, but also in the congruent example that the pioneers show in their role model function.
  • The way into the future
    The responsible people must be ahead of all others on the way into the future, not standing indifferently beside and only propel. They lose their reliability, if they do not create the impression to believe in it. It must be clear to everyone that the way into the future will be stony and full of obstacles. The price for keeping up is the brave new world.
  • Decisiveness for the necessary measures
    In order to make progress with the change, it needs decisiveness and consequence. Particularly in the beginning the momentum is determined that will be needed during the realization to be able to get over larger difficulties. The necessary measures go beyond the content-related solutions. There are special tools available in change management that make the changes possible – convincing and engaging publications as well as the open discourses with the target groups.
  • The willingness to change oneself
    The personal willingness to change of all responsible people them is crucial for the success of the initiatives. They must leave their personal comfort zone and take risks, so that the others develop the confidence that allows them to admit the changes. If the responsible persons do not show this readiness, the project fails rather earlier than later.

So that room is available for innovation, you also have to let go things, which are actually completely pleasing. Change makers, who do not achieve to convey the change, to act respectively and to let those pleasant advantages go cause

  • continuous delay of the change projects,
  • lack of concrete results,
  • confusion through permanent micro management,
  • uncertainty due to repetitive goal changes and
  • demotivation with unjustified accusations.

Change management begins in the mind of all involved and concerned people. Those, who are part of the problem, have difficulties to stick to these changes. For this reason, one needs neutral third views, which are free of personal involvement, who have the look for the substantial aspects and effective tools for change, so that the transition succeeds.

Bottom line: Change processes only work as well, as the responsible people, who perform them. The pre-conditions are the inspiring vision, the predefined way into the future, the decisiveness and the readiness to change of the responsible people. Who is not ready to admit is doomed to failure. They actually want change. Or not?