as assets and recognize them as voluntary investors who give their knowledge,
ideas, talents, and efforts to a business, and we have to stop viewing employees
as subordinate cost factors (Bartlett and Ghoshal 2000, cf. also Ghoshal 2003,
pp. 220–222).
Ghoshal wrote about the “bottleneck of human capital,” which includes not only
technical knowledge but the concept of emotional and social capital, reasons for
competition in the future. For the paradigm shift from subordinate culture to a
culture of associates places new strains on management and its training. Managers
must be able to forge and maintain long-term relationships based on trust and
reciprocity. This capacity represents an enormously important resource for the
further development of businesses. The second skill that will become even more
important in the future is energy. There are plenty of visions and lofty ideas, but the
ability to translate these ideas into action is rare in everyday working life.
The human capital of a business takes into account on the one hand the
knowledge of its employees, and on the other the social and emotional capacities
of its managers. It is necessary to find the best management-employee match in
order to generate knowledge and channel it into productivity and increasing busi-
ness revenues. Companies must orient themselves on people, must mediate visions
and values, and cultivate individual potential. Under these conditions extraordinary
achievements are possible (Bartlett and Ghoshal 2000).
With the new paradigm of leadership, there are also changes in the “psychologi-
cal contract,” i.e., the unspoken, implicit obligations on the part of employees and
employers alike concerning various issues. In the past, the employee’s loyalty to a
certain job was based on a paternalistic model. The new model moves back and
forth between mutual dependence and individualism. In the information age,
“employability” (being considered a lucrative employer) is more important than
loyalty for businesses. The companies provide their employees with opportunities
and development rather than security, and with partnership rather than dependence
(de Vries 2002, p. 64). In this regard, Peter F. Drucker also contributed the idea of
the “volunteer organization” (see Sect.2.2.1).
On the other hand, there are of course also expectations placed on employees.
As associates, employees must possess social, design and implementation skills.
They must voluntarily and responsibly commit themselves and be ready for lifelong
learning. Volkswagen designated this type of worker with the term “4-M employee,”
which indicates that one distinguishes oneself through multiple qualifications,
mobility, cooperation and humanism (Wunderer 2002, pp. 40–45).
So much for the ideal image. In reality, however, we cannot increase the
demands on employees to unreachable heights, but must define realistic goals in
mission statements, as Reinhard K. Sprenger does. “‘I will make at least one thing
my own’ in the sense of mastering one task or duty is also an appeal to the personal
responsibility of the employees (here keeping in mind that almost every executive
is also someone else’s employee). While careers are losing their security and the
future of businesses is becoming increasingly unpredictable, people can at least take
responsibility for their own professional life. This applies to their choice of com-
pany, to their choice of position, and to how they choose to use the leeway within
78 2 Occupation or Calling: What Makes for Good Leadership?