Commitment cannot be created by structures, instructions or guidelines. It can
only be made possible through leadership. And this requires a healthy, vibrant, open
and trusting relationship with the employees because according to Sprenger “lead-
ership is a relationship.” Well put, but what does that really mean? How do you do
it? Sprenger only offers one practical hint: “Maintain a warm social-emotional
climate” (Sprenger 2002b, p. 164). Nothing could be easier, many might now be
sardonically thinking to themselves. And: “Only someone who can smile should
become a manager.” Well, that sounds reasonable, but this surely can’t be the only
trait in the field of emotional intelligence that a good leader must have in order to
manage relationships, can it? Of course not! In Chaps. 3 and 4, I will cover this
topic in more detail.
For Sprenger a relationship, personal responsibility, creativity and motivation
are only possible if the pyramid of the traditional corporate hierarchy is turned
upside down and the leadership is behind or below the staff and supports it, rather
than vice versa. This is an amusing idea, I think. According to Sprenger it is not
only emotionally unintelligent but also economically misguided to keep employees
on a short leash and to take all responsibility from them. Managers that make
vassals of their employees prevent the company from benefiting from the latter’s
full potential and block the entrepreneurial thinking and action that companies
desperately need today. They are wasting precious human capital.
Sprenger’s call to the leaders is: “What we need is a framework of awareness
that focuses on personal initiative. Does the employee develop his or her own ideas?
Do they pick up on suggestions? Do they finish the tasks they start? Do they work
independently? Do they wait in vain for tasks to be delegated to them or do they
constantly look for tasks and goals themselves? Do they think about changes
concerning their tasks? To what extent do they voluntarily gather necessary infor-
mation? Do they remain on-task even in unusually stressful situations? (...) With
staff who are always waiting for the bell signal like doormen, we will never master
the competition of the future. So the key questions are: do you encourage initiative
and courage? Or do you give instead communicate that just going by the book is
rewarded?” (Sprenger 2002a, p. 83). If the latter is the case, the manager has done
something wrong.
According to Sprenger, managers must not force their employees to adapt to
universal standards, because the latter know best what high performance means in
their specific job. Yet I find this recommendation problematic. And here Sprenger
also contradicts himself. Concerning trust, he said that it is the task of leaders to
agree upon goals, to monitor their achievement and to punish if they are not met
(see Sect.2.3.3.9). How can employees who are young, are new to the company or
who do not know the international competitors and the market set their own
performance standards? How can performance be appropriately rewarded this
way? One of Sprenger’s fundamental assumptions is that everyone has their own
individual view of things, including their own performance. Therefore I think it is
absolutely necessary that, in dialogue with their staff, leaders set mandatory
guidelines and standards, which are of course in keeping with the performance
capabilities and goals of the employees.
2.3 The Relationship Between Leader and Led 103