Six Theses for New Leadership
We are getting now to the core of my book "Manifesto for Humane Leadership"
Leaders don't create followers; they create more leaders.
Tom Peters
Why new leadership? And why now? New leadership is not a new phenomenon—reevaluating leadership has been necessary and overdue for some time. However, it is becoming urgent due to digitalization and increasingly distributed working, intensified by the recent coronavirus pandemic (see Section “The Coronavirus Pandemic as New Work Boost?”).
The relationship between employees and their organization changed fundamentally from the industrial age to the age of knowledge work. Dependent workers have become increasingly independent knowledge workers who carry their means of production in their heads. The organization is, therefore, more dependent on these knowledge workers than vice versa (see Section “Species-Appropriate Keeping of Knowledge Workers”). This transition took time; it was a long and steady process that is still ongoing. Although Peter Drucker pointed out this development as early as 1959, he still needs to receive sufficient attention. Despite the theoretical insight, most organizations in the 21st Century still follow the machine model of the fading industrial age.1
For too long, leadership has aimed at obedience. Children were (and unfortunately still are today) brought up at home and school to fit into society and its (outdated) organizational patterns. And this integration meant and still means subordination at its core. Although the impermeable feudal system of the Middle Ages is a thing of the past, the organizational principle of hierarchy stood the test of time precisely because the Enlightenment created the possibility of personal advancement: no hierarchical order--no advancement. In the course of industrialization with its large corporate structures, this principle, therefore, was expanded and differentiated considerably.
It is high time to make leadership more human and more humane. This “Manifesto for Humane Leadership” is meant to be an impetus and guide for that endeavor. The well-known “Manifesto for Agile Software Development”2 served as a template. On the one hand, the question of new leadership, which I tried to answer with this Manifesto, arose during the agile transformation of BMW Group IT. On the other hand, the format of the theses is connectable and builds bridges instead of demonizing the previous principles and glorifying the new.
Human Potential, Not Human Resources
Anyone who views organizations as machines and treats people like cogs cannot complain that employees are working to rule. Under these circumstances, functioning as flawlessly as possible is the most we can expect. The “Gallup Engagement Index,” which Gallup has used since 2000 to measure employee engagement worldwide, clearly shows the full extent of this wastefulness. The results are sobering year after year: In Germany, for instance, around 15 percent are actively disengaged, and around 70 percent are not engaged, i.e., they more or less work by the book. The values vary from country to country, but most employees are disengaged.3
However, the employees are not to blame here, or at least not predominantly. Where organizations and management treat people as resources, they behave as such. The same people are motivated and creative and often develop their potential in their free time—or fall short of their full potential (see Section “The Eight Type of Waste”). Leadership can make a decisive difference here for all sides. That is why the first thesis of the Manifesto for Humane Leadership is: “Unleashing human potential over employing human resources.”
Of course, organizations are also about human labor. Using physical and mental capacities effectively and efficiently is essential. That is why at the very end of the Manifesto for Humane Leadership, there is the statement: “That is, while there is value in the items on the bottom, we value the highlighted items on the top more.” It reminds us not to forget or underestimate the fact that this professional management of labor in the 20th Century led to an enormous increase in productivity in manual activities, as Peter Drucker summarizes:4
The most important, and indeed the truly unique, contribution of management in the 20th Century was the fifty-fold increase in the productivity of the manual worker in manufacturing. […] The most important contribution of management in the 21st Century will be to increase knowledge worker productivity—hopefully by the same percentage. […] The methods, however, are totally different from those that increased the productivity of manual workers.
Today, it is no longer sufficient to merely manage the human workforce. Both people and activities have changed massively over the past 50 years. Manual work has been and continues to be increasingly automated. As a result, the proportion of knowledge work is constantly increasing. And people are no longer unskilled or low-skilled workers, as in the days of Frederick Winslow Taylor, but more and more well-trained knowledge workers. Still, using their labor, capacity, and creativity is crucial, but the only ones who can and should decide on this are the knowledge workers themselves, as Peter Drucker put it:5
Even if employed full-time by the organization, fewer and fewer people are "subordinates"—even in fairly low-level jobs. Increasingly they are "knowledge workers." And knowledge workers are not subordinates; they are "associates." For, once beyond the apprentice stage, knowledge workers must know more about their job than their boss does—or else they are no good at all. In fact, that they know more about their job than anybody else in the organization is part of the definition of knowledge workers.
In the era of knowledge work, self-organization is taking the place of management more and more. The appropriate leadership motto now is “enabling self-leadership” (see Section “Enabling Self-Leadership”). The task of leadership is no longer to employ standardized “human material” as profitably as possible but instead to act like a gardener. The task is to create and maintain an environment in which people can develop their full potential and use as much of it for the organization. “Leadership is a service—not a privilege. The service for employees is to offer them the opportunity to develop themselves.”6 At Upstalsboom, this motto of Bodo Janssen has led to resounding success in terms of employee satisfaction (up 80 percent) and sickness rate (from eight percent to less than three percent), but also in terms of revenue (doubling within three years) while at the same time increasing productivity.7
Creating value through valuing people instead of exploiting human resources is the future.
Diversity and Dissent
Diversity originated in the civil rights movement in the USA. Since then, it has been a much-noticed and controversial topic in organizations and society. It generally refers to the equal participation of people of different origins, genders, religions, or ages. In this respect, diversity usually means equal opportunities or, at least, the absence of discrimination. While this is desirable and self-evident, it only touches the surface.
Diversity in age, gender, origin, etc., is useless if the organizational culture leans toward conformity and consensus. The leaders in such a culture will likely fall into the same grid regardless of gender because the culture and assessment systems can only produce one type of manager, irrespective of gender or other markers of diversity.
We seek a culture in which the different perspectives of people—how they think and solve problems based on their unique experiences and their values—are highly valued. This diversity of thinking is the antidote to dangerous groupthink. Having a diverse workforce is necessary for such a culture, but it is not sufficient. The decisive factor is what the culture does with the heterogeneity the people bring to work: Standardize or nurture?
The second thesis of this Manifesto for Humane Leadership, “Diversity and dissent over conformity and consensus,” means striving for a supportive and inclusive culture that values individuality more than conformity and sees constructive dissent as a necessary part of good decision-making processes. In the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower:8 “May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”
Peter Drucker also advises in his book “The Effective Executive”9 that no decision should be made without really discussing the issue. As a prime example, he cites Alfred P. Sloan, who reportedly said in a meeting of a top committee: “Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here.” Everyone around the table nodded assent. “Then,” continued Mr. Sloan, “I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”
Kim Scott reports something similar in her book “Radical Candor” about Steve Jobs10. A colleague of Steve once gave way in a dispute with Steve, although Steve's arguments did not convince him. In retrospect, it turned out that Steve was wrong, and the colleague was right. Instead of apologizing, Steve ran into his colleague's office and scolded him loudly. “But it was your idea,” the colleague tried to justify himself. Steve replied: “Yes, and it was your job to convince me that I was wrong. And you failed.”
Table of Contents
The links lead to the parts that are already published here on Substack.
Six Theses for New Leadership
Manifesto for Humane Leadership
Human Potential, Not Human Resources
Diversity and Dissent
Leading with Purpose and Trust
Network and hierarchy
Encounter at Eye Level
The Art of Ambidexterity
The 14 Principles Behind the Manifesto
People are at the Center
Start With Self-Care
Strengthen Strengths
Leadership Means Relationship
Context Not Control
Gardener Not Chess Master
Principles Not Rules
Less is More
Questions Not Answers
Trust Is the Foundation
Safety Not Fear
He Who Says A Does Not Have to Say B
Integrity Over Charisma
Disturbing the Comfort Zone
Get to Work!
Leading by Example
Incitement to Rebellion
Set Priorities
Enduring Dissonance
Doing Your Best
The next chapter will follow next Friday. In case you want to read on as soon as possible, the book is available on Amazon in many countries as hardcover, paperback, and for your Kindle. (also on Leanpub). And all my German readers can get the German edition in every book store.
Frédéric Laloux and Ken Wilber, Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the next Stage of Human Consciousness, First edition (Brussels: Nelson Parker, 2014).
Kent Beck et al., “Manifesto for Agile Software Development,” 2001, https://agilemanifesto.org/.
“Indicator: Employee Engagement,” Gallup.com, accessed October 8, 2024, https://www.gallup.com/394373/indicator-employee-engagement.aspx.
Peter F. Drucker and Joseph A. Maciariello, Management, Rev. ed (New York, NY: Collins, 2008), 191.
Drucker and Maciariello, 71.
Bodo Janssen, Die stille Revolution: Führen mit Sinn und Menschlichkeit, 7. Auflage (München: Ariston, 2016), 48.
Janssen, 274 f.
United States Department of State Office of Media Services and United States Department of State Office of Public Communication, The Department of State Bulletin, Bd. 30 (Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs, 1954), 901.
Peter F. Drucker, The Effective Executive: The Definitive Guide to Getting the Right Things Done, repr. (New York, NY: Harper, 1967), 148.
Kim Scott, Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss without Losing Your Humanity, Fully revised & updated edition (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2019), 80.