universal freedom and absolute self-determination and self-motivation, one should
keep in mind that not all employees are equal.
Everyone needs a good balance between security and freedom to feel good, to
develop, to grow and to be able to deliver good performance. While some recognize
no authority, prefer to work in the middle of the night and find their own projects,
others need a stable framework, fixed working hours and requirements for their
work in order to orient their goals and arrive at quantifiable success.
People have different speeds. Some live in the fast lane, constantly chasing new
challenges, trends and innovations, working on five projects simultaneously and are
constantly learning, while the others belong to the “slobbies,” the “slower but better
working people” who do not rush and reliably and accurately work on one order
after the other. This finding is in no way pejorative. Businesses need not only
visionary free spirits, but also reliable implementers. The mixture is what leads to
success.
Too much space can also mean leading too little. A manager must not only
consider those employees who want as much freedom as possible and cannot force
everyone else to adopt this style of working, overwhelming them in the process.
They must be careful about what type of person is sitting there in front of them and
what that person needs. Good management creates the optimal environment for
each employee and each is positioned where his or her skills are optimally used.
As a manager you have to switch between and “leading” and “pacing”
employees, depending on the situation. Leading means giving impulses, demand-
ing, setting goals, and checking on progress. Pacing means contacting, accom-
panying, sensing, considering and asking. The executive must be able to see
exactly what the employee needs more: someone who leads the way or someone
who walks beside them.
3.2.10.3 Islands in the Storm
“For the manager of today, chaos is not merely a scientific theory. It is everyday
life,” (Kanter 1998, p. 73), states Rosabeth Moss Kanter, and millions of managers
around the world every day would agree. Traditional values like flawless, long-term
plans, unchanging rules, and strategies that are not quickly taken over by
competitors, play a lesser role than in previous years and decades. But chaos does
not mean we have to act without guidance or boundaries. Modern leadership grants
sufficient support and continuity for employees, but not so much that creative
responses to the chaos around us are discarded before they can be explored (see
Kanter 1998, p. 74).
Unlike other theorists and practitioners, who are in favor of the end of
hierarchies, I am convinced that threatening, chaotic situations require a supreme
authority that must be “someone who can make final decisions and who can expect
that they are followed,” as Peter F. Drucker put it, because: “Hierarchical structures
and their full acceptance by all stakeholders in the organization are the only hope in
the midst of the crisis” (Drucker 1990b, p. 41). Other situations require joint
180 3 Systemic Leadership or: Designing a World That Others Want to Be Part Of