Chinese speed has many facets. Long working hours are, in fact, a relatively minor factor in the rapid achievement of goals and success. One important aspect, it seems to me, is linked to preferred ways of thinking. Western thinking often draws on a concept of truth, the urge to discover »what holds the world together at its core«. This Faustian quest for truth shapes Western thinking, including that of engineers. Deep understanding before action.

In Confucian-influenced Chinese thinking, the concept of truth is rarely invoked. It is almost always about an immediate, practical application. Priority is given to finding the way, not the truth. Starting before seeking certainty. This is also just one aspect among others, and without judgement as to which way of thinking is truly the right one.

Is our brain trapped inside our skull? We have long since outsourced cognitive functions. We have transferred memory to analogue and, above all, digital storage devices, delegated arithmetic operations to machines, and increasingly handed over our own thinking to AI. We have provided our cognitive system with support and, in doing so, understood that we are neither cognitively nor emotionally confined within ourselves. We are in constant dialogue with our environment and are not left unimpressed.

I sit in my library and, looking at the spines of the books, I am much more inspired than when I try to navigate through twenty open windows on a screen. Different environments make me think differently, open up other paths of thought.

I remember a meeting last week. There is a desire for open, multi-perspective, creative exchange. The room is cramped, windowless, and the notes from previous meetings are written on the wipeable, but rarely wiped, boards on the walls. It is exhausting to resist the presence of this room; it forces you to remain in old patterns of thinking, unable to break away from the everyday. The space and what it can trigger is often stronger than the individual desire for difference.

How different was the encounter the week before, a leadership meeting in a museum. The theme of the exhibition is not so important; what is effective is the environment – different, unusual. It creates a different mood, a different attitude. And perspectives on issues shift, new things enter the horizon of thought.

Where we are, what we surround ourselves with, is not neutral. We are always related to what is around us. Not neutral, but in an active relationship, in active exchange. Spaces and atmospheres should be chosen carefully.

1. The Coaching Landscape in Transition

The coaching scene is in flux. New methods and certifications are constantly emerging. In addition to established psychotherapeutic approaches and business-oriented career coaching, the industry is increasingly integrating esoteric and spiritual perspectives. Social trends are also finding their way into coaching. One example is men’s coaching with traditional male role models. Certificates and training courses are springing up everywhere – some with imaginative titles such as »Value-Oriented Master of Business Coaching« or »Naturopathic Wellness Coach.«

1.1 Regulation and professionalization

The growing number of coaches has triggered a movement that aims to protect coaching by law. Economic interests also play a role here. This is particularly relevant in the digital space: as soon as coaching includes learning and training content, a license is required. The question »Where does coaching end and training begin?« is a hot topic in the industry. Experienced coaches try to set themselves apart by mentoring beginners. This dynamic is reminiscent of the psychotherapy scene, where different schools fought for recognition.

1.2 The decisive factor: relationship quality

A meta-study in psychotherapy showed that the decisive factor is the quality of the relationship between therapist and client. It will be no different in coaching.

2. Current developments and trends

2.1 Challenges of the systemic approach

The dominant systemic approach is increasingly being questioned. Experienced coaches want to pass on their knowledge. The previously frowned-upon practice of »giving advice« is being rehabilitated in favor of the pure midwife approach. External mentoring brings a valuable outside perspective. Contributing experience and knowledge creates a space in which emergence becomes possible. Every participant emerges from a good conversation changed.

2.2 AI as a coaching partner

Advantages of AI:

• Broad and deep data availability
• A shame-reduced encounter is possible; AI is good at simulating empathy.
• Always a valuable source of development when the AI-human relationship can be reflected upon. This is done effectively with a coach. AI as part of a love triangle, so to speak.

Limitations of AI:

• Analog signals (tone of voice, atmosphere) are hardly taken into account in relationship building.
• No perception of body tension, facial expressions, gestures
• Very reduced sensory dimension
• Hardly any possibility to perceive the transfer process and use it as a starting point for reflection.

A coach looks behind the prompts. The relationship between two people always remains a sensory one, not an abstract intellectual one.

2.3 From agility to high performance

In consulting, buzzwords come and go. First it was agility, then purpose, now high performance. High performance is often mistakenly pitted against purpose.

The reality:

• Purpose is the indispensable basis for high performance.
• Having purpose is not an ethical category in itself.
• The company cannot give purpose, it can only create space for it.
• Drive and energy come from the individual subject.

The coaching room is not a place to complain about the company or superiors. It is a space for self-efficacy. This requires self-empowerment.

Viktor Frankl put it succinctly: Without a willingness to make sacrifices, there can be no meaningful life—and therefore no meaningful work.

3. Coaching as an organizational development tool

Coaching is increasingly being used as an organizational development tool. Is this a sign of helplessness or the result of an overly simplistic analysis? Both are possible—but there is also an opportunity here.

3.1 The pitfalls of current coaching programs

Typical process:

• Perceived competitive weakness of the company
• Cause is seen as weak leadership
• Assessment to identify strengths and weaknesses
• Individual coaching to »repair«

The problem: In most people’s perception, coaching is positioned here as a repair operation. Yet coaching was just beginning to position itself as a best practice in leadership behavior.

3.2 Structural problems

Assessment tools:

• Often work with outdated leadership models.
• Do not utilize the social knowledge of the organization.
• Are perceived as evaluation tools.
• And above all, they shift the concrete work on the leadership model that this organization now needs to a third party, instead of the management team itself discussing the concrete, prioritized requirements. If this happens, then this approach is already a learning and coaching process.

Even if managers have been involved in deciding on the typical approach described above, it is not a good prerequisite for successful coaching. It may offer individuals an opportunity for development, but whether this will be effective in the organization is questionable.

The fallacy: »If each individual improves, the whole will improve.« In our experience: No!

3.3 Effective design

Two key questions:

• How should a coaching program be designed to have a relevant impact on the performance of the entire organization?
• How can coaching be integrated into a shared leadership process in which leadership skills are developed internally and reflected upon collectively?

There are answers to both questions, which we have discussed in detail. Coaching can then become an effective organizational development process.

4. Who is the coach?

4.1 The coach as curator

In a Chinese desert. Silent. You can hear the earth breathing.
You see and marvel at the starry sky—as everyone before us has done. Marveling without wanting to.
The small group of executives is changing. They are touched differently, in a different mood. And they look differently at what was just very dominant.

Coaching can be: Leading to places. Inviting experiences that lie hidden under the pressure of everyday life.

We meet in the entrance hall of the Museum of Art Pudong in Shanghai. We are a group of Chinese executives and consultants from SYNNECTA China. Our topic: Make my organization dance.

»After the red moon« von El Anatsui is a monumental work of art. To experience it, it needs the architecture of today’s museums – flexible in structure, open and wide inside and breaking down the boundary between outside and inside. It reflects the principles of contemporary organizational development: Transparency and collaboration, not just inwards. We look up and experience the carpet-like structures that can only be seen now in this space and this morning light – a momentary experience. Even if the work itself is constant, it changes depending on where and when it is seen. Our reflective journey through the exhibition begins with this first glance. Experience and reflection form the rhythm of our tour. Quotes from El Anatsui give us additional inspiration:

»I use multiple elements to talk about the world: not a world made up of just one culture, but a world shaped by all of us coming together.«

We linger for a long time on a sentence that we also experience when seeing one of the works:

»The process was subverting the stereotype of metal as a stiff, rigid medium and rather showing it as a soft, pliable, almost sensous material, capable of attaining immense dimensions and being adapted to specific spaces.«

We leave the exhibition after three hours. The effect: principles for an agile, flexible and yet focused organization were not only understood as theory, but also sensually experienced when looking at the works. The sensory reference point makes it much more likely that the integration into one’s own reality will go beyond words.

When was the last time you were confronted with contemporary art?

A trend or a return to the old hierarchical world?

There are already the first posts on social media positioning themselves against »wokeness«. Sometimes with an attack on the »soft« fashions in the people departments and the so-called soft consultancies. There is a noticeable trend towards more top-down and a new »strength« and »decisiveness«. In addition, all programs that support diversity are under considerable pressure. For us, this is an important moment to reflect on our strengths, attitudes and proven skills and knowledge in transformations. In the following text, we confirm what is important and necessary to give the productivity and performance of people in organisations room to develop. How do you reflect on the significance and influence of this new trend from the political arena that is now reaching companies?

A beginning

We have a lot to say. A lot about: New Organisation, New Work, New Mindset. Five years ago, we could have summarised what we have to say in one lecture – we can no longer do that today. It is too multifaced, it is too differentiated. So we pick out the aspects that we are dealing with in our internal discussions and in conversations with customers. We are experiencing upheavals, experiments, outbreaks and new things alongside a great deal of stability – at all levels, in the organisations as new forms of organisation, in groups as new dynamics of social communitisation, individual people with new life plans that do not follow career mainstream.

What is actually driving this?

On the surface, companies are perhaps driven by fear, of losing touch with the Chinese dynamic – perhaps – perhaps – or maybe the loss of confidence in the European success story: the systematic planning, the management of projects, the once so successful waterfall planning, perhaps doubts about the predictive power of strategic departments? Perhaps the confrontation with the doubts of many about the quality of leadership? Perhaps the widespread loss of trust in the »elites«? But perhaps also because it is obvious that we are now more and more confronted with non-linear, dynamically deterministic systems: in the markets, in competition, in society, in the community of our own company, and yet we have worked so hard to make the world linear dynamic deterministic. No matter how often we ask »why«, we will not find the cause – but we will find conditions, contingencies, relations.

For NEW WORK, one condition stands out, a social, a global tendency that has been stable for a very long time: The gain of more and more individual freedom. We see this clearly in the metropolitan regions – where social control is minimised and there is room for many niches, for a lot of otherness, an otherness that can organise itself as a group and group affiliation. It is about self-determination, about one’s own individuality and its social recognition, it is about utilising an old concept, it is about self-realisation. In the current motivation theories, it is labelled with the terms autonomy and learning (growth) and with the idea of self-realisation, that we are purpose-ied. Today, this is an elementary aspect of a corporate culture. With the orientation towards purpose, which replaces the processes of vision or mission, the strenuous, the challenging – how can we balance the individual with the common into a balance that is characterised by a certain consistency. How can our own purpose become a common one and how consistent can this be? In the background is the question of the relationship between solidarity and individual selfhood. Individuality and the quality of communitisation belong together and they make the new forms of work so interesting, so exciting and at the same time so challenging. Because we are in the process of doing without our big, caring brother.

And of course the freedom of the many, the diversity of the many is a driver of complexity, and in allowing this diversity, the idiosyncrasies, we also experience the loss of the one binding moral institution that provides security. This is not only being demanded politically, but also in companies – unfortunately not looking forward, but with a growing longing for the old authority, to use a psychoanalytical image, for the all-judging father. New Work goes the other way – New Work wants to shape freedom so that co-operation and so that collaboration and community are still possible. They allow us to trace aspects that we encounter in our work and for which there are no simple recipes.

The agile organisation – in essence, the search for an organisation that is able to adapt quickly, in which internal orientation is reduced and in which it becomes possible to make an external perspective effective internally in smaller units. Zygmund Bauman called this a fluid organisation decades ago. The blueprints are available – however, the social and psychological dynamics of such organisations still leave many issues unresolved. What can we observe – apart from the trivial issues that not everyone is in favour of such changes, that scepticism is spreading, that the masters of consistency (they are mostly men) fear a loss of power:

Escape into the method
Methods are helpful and necessary – but at best they are only half of the journey. We are somewhat astonished the thoroughness with which the methodological set is increasingly more and more formulated and increasingly resembles the small-scale process landscape that the new organisation was intended to at least reduce. Described methods provide security, they relieve the individual of the burden of personal organisation and are often an escape from freedom. But that’s what it’s all about if you want to achieve flexibility, the richness of polyphony. They are too often an escape from the opportunity of self-efficacy and the responsibility.

The lack of group dynamic competence
What happens when we level out hierarchy and describe the role in such a way that it becomes more of an enabler for personal responsibility. In fact, we lack an understanding of group dynamics and social dynamic processes. The concept of empathy is waved around, but that, difficult in itself, falls short if we want to support people in the informal, i.e. emotionally unrelieving, social leadership processes. It is time to practise group dynamic competence again. Informal leadership opens up a wide field for egomaniacs and narcissists and we know the devastating consequences of bullying in the school context. Group dynamics as experiential learning is needed.

We want your soul, your heart
This becomes all the more important the more we begin to no longer separate our work and private lives. We are merging two previously separate identities. And we are doing it, because we have understood that in the new organisations we need the whole person and not just the time that they make available to us. The old deal was clear: you get money and security (the famous gold watch later) and you give us your agreed limited time, your obedience and your loyalty. If we believe in the motivating power of a purpose, i.e. the fact that a person commits their whole existence to something, because their own deep sense of purpose and that of the work increasingly coincide, then the old deal no longer works. I can’t buy the heart, the soul of a person – the company has to offer more – places, rooms, spaces, relationships, social structures, meaningful concepts that enable people to make a full contribution. And also the freedom to accept what is on offer, for a time, the freedom to leave them again – in the longer term, company boundaries will become fluid. And so the attractiveness as a »place to live« will become increasingly important.

The finite nature of purpose
Purpose often comes across as very gravitational – with such a hint of eternity. But that is a constriction. We do not follow the one purpose in our lives that we must somehow have to discover on this journey through life. Our energy, commitment find many »senses« and they seek out social contexts in which they can be lived. They are guiding for a time, then we leave them for something that is now in this phase of life, in this social context touches us more. This is where we find the second meaning level of Zygmund Bauman’s concept of the fluid organisation – we also flow within our organisation, but also increasingly between organisations and more and more also between different concepts of life. Organisations are faced with the task of repeatedly and to create inviting places and structures that offer meaning and are thus able to attract those seeking meaning. We will have to learn to experience the flowing itself as stable.

The psychological focus
For us, in our working tradition, the psychological focus, i.e. the constitution of people in these changes, is of great importance. How do people learn recognise their roles, their possibilities in the new forms, how do we give them a chance to realise themselves in the new to reinvent themselves in previously closed possibilities? This requires, for example, deep interventions in the rarely thematised normative basic assumptions of coaching or leadership training. If we work laterally and explore more lateral possibilities, then we leave behind the previously dominant vertical aspect that organisations today primarily offer as a career. Career, previously linked to advancement as hope and as pain, is defined differently – more and more as the ability to repeatedly find places of attractiveness, to see oneself as fluid. However, companies quickly come up against the limits of society, which still celebrates the hero of advancement.

How do we learn?
Ultimately, the question arises as to which concepts of life we train people for. More than ever, Gregory Bateson’s distinction between first-order learning and second-order learning. We will make little progress with a PISA-orientated approach, because that which has trains and teaches what has been tried and tested, in an old and stable world. Learning for the new, that which we have not yet practised, that requires an opening to the part of our part of our society that we like to marginalise with the words art and describe as a place of bliss. But it is precisely there that we can learn more about the future than in any strategy or marketing department of large corporations and consultancies. Long before companies could call what they call VUCA today, art has showed us with a performative twist what event means, what ruptures mean and what it means to be able to act fluidly. But our current management elites have become quite art-averse.

The happiness of otherness
For us, the focus is also shifting to what is dealt with under the keyword diversity. This is about more than statistics showing that we have diversity… quotas for women, quotas for Indians, LGBTIQ* quotas and so on. How do we actually learn to respect each other, how do we learn to talk and act about differences in such a way that they mean wealth rather than exclusion. There will be no real agility without addressing diversity. And that starts with the smaller differences that were not talked about in the old world of work (separation of private and work) and which hold back considerable energy in the form of silence or the lack of a platform for expression. In my work in the diverse Asian cultures, I know that we have really achieved something when people say »you have touched my heart« and when they have touched my heart. Then we start to have respect for each other and thus for each other.

The magic word – mindset change
Sounds simple enough. But what is it all about? There are many descriptions. For example, from inside-outside thinking and acting to outside-inside thinking and acting. Or from being trapped in the inbox to opening up to the outbox, or in the word game play on words, your goal is to come forward or to come along. Whatever it’s called, it’s about getting out of the perspective of self-centredness, of the ego. Not really new, but important, because in business and economics the egomaximiser has been at the forefront of business and economics for too long. was at the centre. The egomaximisers in their competition for ever diminishing resources were seen as the guarantor of dynamism – the co-operating members of the community as the somewhat stupid members of the herd. A very truncated Darwinism, in which it was clear early on that the real egoist is not one, but rather someone who co-operates and is successful as a result. In the Christian world, there used to be the saying it is more blessed to give than to receive. Co-operation here is not just another method or, according to Buddhist concepts of self-optimisation a new trick of egoism, but the self-awareness that the joy, fulfilment and happiness of cooperation can be found in a self-enclosed ego. So what cooperation or today often also called collaboration, can reveal the deep structure of our own thinking and feeling in which we encounter the world. And this makes it possible to create common ground across differences, boundaries and affiliations.

Mutuality
I like to remember conversations with Helm Stierlin, one of the founding fathers of systemic therapy, who understood co-operation as mutuality. Not in the sense of a deal, but rather as a gift that establishes a relationship that allows the other person freedom. This seems to contradiction to the thesis of individualism – because in the new forms of work, the collective is the hero. Now we live our individualism in collectives, in groups in which we feel that we are in good hands and which we change depending on the course of our identity. In mutuality of co-operation, I maintain my individuality and at the same time I am part of a collective that is responsible for the whole. This is the point at which the discussion about the mindset, which sounds so abstract and neutral a spiritual note penetrates. It is the idea of all-connectedness, which in turn corresponds to the experience that we live in a non-linear, dynamically deterministic world.

Organisations or finally thinking politically?
And with all that we are already doing today, we are falling short, if we do not intervene more deeply in the way in which the future is negotiated in companies today (the future here means market, product, process, strategy, etc.). If we only anchor the basic idea of agility, the ability to react quickly and flexibly to changes or to act iteratively and with foresight, in the operational units, then we will not be able to realise our full potential, then we will continue to remain slow and do what has been successful in the past. If we continue with the oligarchic structure of companies, where a more or less homogeneous group that has been organized long time in large programmes, and which has been south, west and east to determine the topics of the organisation, then New Work will not find a place in the organisation. This raises the question for organisational development: who is allowed to speak, who is heard, who has places to speak and to be heard? It is about a genuine discourse process in which the many different people participate in the decisions that determine what should happen in the company and what should happen in the markets. Socially, there will be hardly be a participation in the ownership structure, but a genuine participation in shaping the community with dedicated commitment. With our through-route concepts, we have shown easily practicable ways to break up the oligarchic nature of companies oligarchy and thus created space for voices that are much more likely than long-serving managers to understand what the future will mean and where the place can be that place the company can occupy in this future.

And finally, looking a little further ahead – how do we change our inner attitude towards what is coming as new concepts of life? How do we understand them? An excursion into the pop world of a generation that doesn’t yet has no letter.

Demography – how radical are the changes in life plans?

BTS – a Korean boy band (No. 1 in the US Billboard charts as the first Korean band with »Idol«): A fully staged boy group – every piece of information, every utterance, every movement is choreographed or curated. At the same time the only K-pop band that sends political messages – strongly core message strongly related to individualism: Be yourself, whatever you are or want to be. The videos send, in addition to the offer of identification – the groups always consist of a mix of people (would significantly change the recruitment strategies for management boards) an inclusive message – you are part of us – we are diverse and you belong to us. The videos are also described as representing a hyper-inclusive aesthetic. In the performances, there is no longer a difference between the surface (the performance) and the actual identities – the surface is the whole. Thus Beuys has arrived in youth culture.

Our deep thinking – there is the foreground and the background, there is the appearance and behind it the real thing, the deep-seated Platonism is cancelled out here. The question behind it becomes obsolete because the surface is already the real thing. What does this mean for the world of work? Dissolution of the difference of private and work? The end of role-playing and with it a new kind of authenticity? Places of work as places where identity is formed and lived. Places of work as event spaces – which are passed through quicker – the weakening of continuities in favour of fault lines and lines of rupture and leaps in life? These are also aspects of New Work.

A look at recent coaching experiences. On what background of life plans do I formulate my questions? How much is the whole setting characterised by the old expectations of the companies’ expectations? In her autobiography, Michelle Obama writes about her grandfather, in whom she saw the bitterness of shattered dreams. A bitterness that I encounter again and again in middle management of large companies. While this bitterness can be felt in the background of organisations, the young world is moved by the power of dreams.Let us follow hope and not bitterness.

Appendix: Stories about the lecture

I.
The group was silent, silent for more than an hour. It was traumatised. It was such a good start – working without hierarchy, working in small groups with a common interest, being able to do what you always wanted to do. Then came the setbacks – first the cancellation of projects that were still seen as very promising in the group, but now had no longer had a budget for strategic reasons. How to say goodbye? And how to deal with the fact that you were now also redirected yourself and found themselves in projects and groups that they would not have chosen without need. Then the group dynamics took their course – informal leaders emerged who had good social manipulation skills but were not really suited to the task of exercising a steering function and then the organisation’s desire to make it truly hierarchy-free and the introduction of peer evaluation. The last one was definitely too much – so the group fell silent and had lost all the energy and commitment of the beginning.

II.
From a conversation with a works council member. He was really worried. He looked into the room and saw that all the ergonomic achievements of organised labour had been lost. Employees were sitting on wooden pallets, the tables that were occasionally available were completely unsuitable – and he said, what will their backs look like when they have been working for twenty years? The young people have no longer understand that the company and the works council are fighting against each other to find a better solution for them. They are completely at the mercy of the upper echelons.

III.
From a coaching session. I met this very talented person, when he was still a team leader and had learnt from the CEO that he had been appointed across all hierarchical levels to the board of the the most important division for the future. In that first meeting, we talked a lot about theatre and literature in particular – we compared our reading experiences and it was a tender and very energetic conversation. A year later, I spoke to him, who was still fiery and energetic, about his reading experiences over the last few months. And he blanched because he realised that he had only read management guides and in his reflection he understood, that his deepest source for »leadership« did not come from the guidebooks, but from the deep layers of literary experience. He is now reading again.

IV.
A completely clueless manager. In his management area he has a very talented woman who does much more, does it successfully, than she should and what would be appropriate for her position. So he struggled in his care and his sense of justice, he fought for a promotion and could then proudly offer it to the young woman. He expected joy and gratitude, but received a friendly but firm no – she didn’t want it. And he asked why: And she said, what I’m doing now, I’m doing voluntarily and I enjoy it, if I accept your offer, then I have to do it and I don’t want to.

V.
Another conversation with a messenger who brings you the food you have chosen on the Internet from a restaurant. I said, you know you’re being taken advantage of? You get little money, you only get good shifts if you are fully committed to the needs of your company, which has no duty of care towards you, and you even paid for the box on your back yourself, the bike is your own – why are you doing this? But I am free he said and that was all.

VI.
One last one: An expat manager in Thailand. She mocks about the Thais’ belief in magic, laughs at their offerings in the temples and this daily worship of a shrine. shrine. He is enlightened, hypermodern, rational. The evening is long and after the ritual intoxication process has come to an end (it was mainly cocktails) he talked about his great experiences with positive affirmations. He had found a service provider (they used to be called priest) who, for a small fee, would send him a positive affirming sentence every morning and he then to himself. It was very effective, he said, not realising the irony of the situation.

VII.
It is now 30 years ago. I was talking to a Franciscan woman in a hospital, pushing trolleys of books around the rooms and talking to the sick – talking was probably the most important thing. We talked and that’s how I learnt that this woman, who was now in the lowest rung of the Franciscan hierarchy Franciscans, had been in Rome just a year ago and was the abbess of the entire order of women. And there was no bitterness in her. She was happy and cheerful. It has been around for a long time, the other occupation of the hierarchical posts.

Black and white. Good and evil. Anima and animus. Emotional and rational. Social and personal. Is life made of dualities? Strategy and culture are one of these dualities we often encounter business-wise. Are we talking about opposing forces? Dichotomies seem to give us two opposing aspects on different poles, and the choice we have to make is either one or the other. Will we choose to act for good or evil? Will we focus on creating a stable business strategy or distinctive company culture? The thing is, we are much more complex.

There are so many shades between black and white, and we are living proof of the spectrum between those polarities. We are a combination of various qualities, each present by a different degree. Some traits or behaviours may dominate our nature, while others will resurface only on special occasions. We are the best representation of the polarity concept.

There is a scope and extent of each aspect contained within the other. A continuum of polarities exists within us, and we often personify a varying combination of them. Nothing flourishes in extremes, so often, the key is in finding balance. To conclude whether this is the case with company strategy and culture, we need to define the two first.

What is strategy and can you run a business without one?

Before we dive into defining what the term business strategy encompasses, we should take a step back and examine what strategy actually means. The term was introduced 15 centuries ago, originating from the Greek στρατηγία stratēgia, meaning »art of troop leader; office of general, command, generalship«. Military tactics, siegecraft, logistics were just several skill subsets that the »art of the general« embodied. The term strategy evolved through the ages and came to denote a high-level plan to achieve one or more long-term or overall goals under uncertain conditions.

Strategy is not solely reserved for the military quests anymore. Nowadays, it stands tall in all life areas, be it personal development goals, professional life goals or business goals. Our personal strategies are often shaped by our beliefs, values, and personal management system. We hardly go on living our lives, hoping everything will turn out for the better. Even if we don’t have a specific strategy pinned on our vision board, we have at least some sort of a strategy in our minds. What we’ve learned through primary and secondary socialisation and social norms stimulate our goals. Strategizing can sound scary, but we should never forget that the new experiences can serve as an excellent basis for regularly updating our life strategy by having our end goals and vision in mind.

Now, let’s try to grasp what strategy means businesswise. Researchers and practitioners agree that there is no consensus on the subject. Peter Drucker (1954), was the pioneer in addressing the strategy issue. He was under the notion that an organisation’s strategy consists of the answer to two fundamental questions: What is our business, and what should it be? Reflecting on the term’s origin, Drucker didn’t believe that »business is war« or that the business strategy should be associated with an act of warfare. Instead, he thought that strategy should enable an organisation to achieve the desired results in an unpredictable environment. Analysing the company and its marketplace to identify »certainties« was the first strategy development step.

The business strategy should serve as a framework for making both short-term and long-term business decisions. Hundreds of decisions are made in each company daily. From what software should we invest in and use, to marketing, recruiting and sales approaches, and even how each employee should make the most out of their workday. Not having a strategy in place that will guide these decisions, the organisation can be torn in different directions, less effective and profitable, and risks suffering internal confusion and conflict.

To summarise, we can consider business strategy as a set of guiding principles that construct a desired behavioural pattern. It should direct our people to the paths they should and shouldn’t take. Always having the end goal and desired results in mind is what makes both business and life strategies similar. They even point at the same impediments, the worse our starting point is and the more ambitious our goals are, the more effort it will take us to realise said strategy. We should put double the effort in to make it distinguished, and we’ll have to play smarter and work harder to make it a reality.

What is culture?

The term culture might even be more complex and broad than strategy. The consensus case is the same. There is no universal understanding and little consensus within, and even less across disciplines.

Almost seven centuries ago, when the word »culture« first appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary, based on the Latin culture, it denoted »cultivation« or »tending the soil«. A couple of centuries later, the term was associated with the phrase »high culture«, implying the cultivation or refinement of mind, taste, and manners. Nowadays, it is defined as the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, encompassing language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts. Simply put, culture is how we are doing things over here.

Consequently, organisational culture is the assortment of values, expectations, and practices that guide and inform the team members’ actions. It can be seen as the ultimate collection of traits that make our companies authentic. The term »organisation culture« refers to the values and beliefs of an organisation. The company culture also determines the way people interact with each other and behave with others outside the company.

Edgar Schein is one of the most prolific psychologists famous for his model of organisational culture. According to him, organisations do not adopt a culture in a single day. They tend to form it as the employees undergo various changes, adapt to the external environment and solve problems. Schein is famous for characterising three levels of organisational culture: artefacts, values, and basic assumptions.

• Artefacts are the organisational characteristics that individuals can easily view, hear, and feel. A visitor or an ›outsider‹ should also be able to notice them. The architecture and interior design, the office location, the employees’ manner of dressing, and even souvenirs and trophies represent physical artefacts. The language and technology used and the stories and myths circulating among the people are also part of this level. It also includes visible traditions that display ›our way of doing things‹ expressed at ceremonies and rituals, social and leadership practices, and work-related traditions.
• Values, according to Schein, are at higher levels of consciousness, and they represent the employees’ shared opinion on ›how things should be‹. The members don’t necessarily act according to these values, but they can help them classify their situations and actions as desirable or undesirable.
• Basic assumptions are the third level that makes the company culture’s core. These kinds of beliefs are never challenged since they are taken as facts. A pattern of basic assumptions evolves among the social group members. Understanding the basic assumptions gives meaning and coherence to the seemingly disconnected and confusing artefacts and values.

Schein noted that the company culture appears and solidifies through positive problem-solving processes and anxiety avoidance. The way the company solves and reacts to problems is a more prominent factor early in its history, as it will commonly face many challenges. How it responds to those earlier challenges will significantly impact the future cultural DNA. Still, every new problem has the potential to be a pivotal opportunity since new issues are not always the same as the old ones. While broader strategies and mindsets may solidify, the culture adapted by problem-solving can evolve.

On the other hand, anxiety avoidance comprises learned reactions that allow groups to minimise anxiety. Seeking order and consistency and figuring ways to minimise internal and external conflict are elements connected to anxiety avoidance. The resulting behaviours are quite stable since we tend to indefinitely repeat the responses that we know will successfully avoid anxiety.

The collision between culture and strategy

Can strategy and culture operate independently in an organisation? Should they be considered separate entities? This capitalist era enforced a result-driven approach to many companies, and many managers seem to use their strategy to justify chasing numbers, KPIs and ROI. Even though some companies might win the numbers race and double their profits, their people might be impaired in the long run. These demanding managers believe that strategy deals with the »real business« and is the route to success. They deem culture only as »panem et circenses«, using this concept just like the emperors of old used sustenance and entertainment to subdue public discontent. Like a nice thing to have that will hopefully make people happier in the foreseeable future. This complete focus on revenue can create burnt-out and overworked employees, and the culture deficit can lead to high levels of friction and productivity decrease.

Some leaders found it tempting to focus on developing strategy more than culture in the past few years of unprecedented change. Most would argue that a strategy that describes a general long-term vision without defining what it requires of the organisation’s culture is bound to fail.

An insightful Harvard Business Review article concludes that culture is always the winner when strategy and culture collide. Even the famous Peter Drucker quote says that »culture eats strategy for breakfast«. Drucker pointed out the significance of the people factor, implying that regardless of how effective your strategy may be, your company’s culture always determines its success. Even if you have the most detailed and solid strategy in place, chances are, your projects will fail if the people executing said strategy don’t nurture the appropriate culture.

Culture doesn’t refer only to bean-bag chairs at the office game room. It indicates how people act in critical situations, respond to various challenges and manage pressure, treat partners, customers, and each other. If they don’t share the leader’s passion for the company’s vision, the strategy won’t stand a chance since they won’t be keen on implementing the plan in the first place. The company will most likely struggle to execute even the trivial daily strategies, and accomplishing a new one would be out of the question.

As we all know, change is not easy, and people are prone to resistance, especially when it comes to things they are used to and hold dear. Some leaders might battle cultural intransigence for years. Connecting their desired culture with their strategy and business goals might give the profound answer to the question: Why do we want to change our culture?

Culture and strategy need to work in synergy

We need to spend a significant effort and time planning and strategizing, but company culture happens whether we work on developing one or not. There are cases it’s created unintentionally by the founders and executives. It’s worth noting that their actions speak louder than words in the process of culture creation. As time goes by, cultures tend to evolve even though modifying them on purpose can be a pretty complex process. These unplanned developments are not always for the better, and even though it might sound counterintuitive, leaders shouldn’t fight them but work with and within them.

Culture doesn’t have to trump strategy. They should work together in harmony, complementing each other’s success. Alignment is clearly essential, but it’s getting even more challenging over the past few years as priorities and strategies change in the blink of an eye. To help our people understand the ever-changing strategy, we should recognise them and show appreciation for their successes tied to our company’s values, purpose or objectives. We can ensure our team stays aligned with our business needs in their daily tasks by encouraging them to frequently and instantaneously praise their colleagues for delivering on said expectations.

Developing an in-depth understanding of what people need from each other to perform well is vital in driving complementarity between strategy and culture. We should always make an effort to learn how the culture really works while creating the strategy. Try to grasp what people talk about, criticise, prefer, remember, and admire in the company, and ponder their stories, tonality, and language. By listening and empathising, we will find the unwritten norms and values that characterise the culture and the most prominent strategy enablers (communication, technology, tools, incentives, compensation, and benefits) behind the seemingly concealed sentiments. Take the opportunity to analyse how the cultural weaknesses, like particular mindsets, assumptions, and practices, for instance, reflect on goals and productivity. You’ll probably find they limit the exploration of new prospects and potentials, preventing superior performance and higher growth levels.

To achieve the desired synergy, we need to focus on appreciating and incorporating people’s perspectives, mindsets, and skillsets. The most successful companies managed to develop a culture that has grown greater and more powerful than any individual. People are often inspired to conform to a strong culture since it’s the thing that links everyone together, no matter the department they’re in. When people become engaged with the company, the business strategy is more likely to be perceived as a personal one.

When culture and strategy are created simultaneously, they are more prone to be aligned and in full sync to complement and stimulate each other. This harmony fosters the creation of incredible organisational transformations. When we understand our business’ authentic culture, we’re familiar with all the factors, so creating a strategic business plan is almost effortless.

When we say that culture is critical, we’re not undermining strategy and leadership. A particular strategy a company employs has better prospects of thriving if it is supported by the fitting cultural characteristics. Strategy is important, but if we’re looking for long-term success, it must be accompanied by a strong culture. While the strategy will answer all the »what«, culture should define just »how« people will put it into good practice. Prospering companies don’t think of culture as an obstacle they need to tackle but as a change accelerator, their competitive advantage. Even if companies are performance-driven, they need to be primarily person-centred and values-led.

Almost all companies have, now quite some time ago, dealt with their values, often writing them down and distributing them throughout the company. A significant source was often the memory of the founders’ »philosophy« and their words, often late words. The values formed the backbone of the organization and complemented the vision processes. Guiding this was a quote from Odo Marquard: »The future needs origins«. Today, they are a foundation of the »Purpose« processes. It is always about the answer to the question: Who are we and who and how do we want to be?

Now these values, which are often understood as temporally stable, even supratemporal, are actually values of an old world. And so the question arises: Do we need a new value process? And should it this time be designed less top down and more with the inclusion of the socio-ecological environment?

Values, shared, are all the more important the more autonomy and self-control an organization strives for. They are an indispensable part of indirect control, giving the relatively freely operating units a common foundation and thus increasing the possibility of expanding degrees of freedom and reducing hierarchical, direct control.

The importance of new, participatory value processes can be clearly seen in the topic of diversity. In an attempt to increase the diversity of a company, we are designing inclusion programs today, and although we want the difference, the background logic is often »to fit in«.

The contradictory message is: be different, but please be within our culture. So we want a discrimination-free coexistence in the context of our culture, culture of origin. If we really want to be a global company and truly a common house for »diversity«, the old values will have to undergo an intensive revision. This must be done in such a way that diversity is not merely thought of and included, but in such a way that a common identity of differences is formed.

New values emerging from the diverse collective could give members of other life concepts, other cultural origins and other life stories the opportunity to find themselves reflected in the values of their company. Then it would also be justified to speak of global companies and not only of globally represented companies.

SYNNECTA has described a process with TheQuestBySynnecta, which can be an important guide here.

People in organizations expect a credible answer to this question in order to be able to establish a context for their work that delivers a sense of both purpose and meaning. Reacting to such challenges, companies position themselves with a company purpose. Until now, this purpose has almost always been developed from an inside viewpoint. However, organizations always exist in the context of an ecosystem. A meaningful purpose can only be developed in dialogue with the stakeholders of the company‘s own ecosystem. At SYNNECTA, we endeavour to give a truly multi-perspective design to these dialogue processes and thereby foster a deeper understanding of the company’s identity.

People need to work in meaningful contexts

The mindsets of societies change and shift in ways that are especially tangible to the younger generations. There is a growing desire and need for meaningful work contexts and an intention to contribute something useful for a greater whole while working. In short: living meaningfulness.

At the same time, societies are asking companies what contribution they are making to people and society. It is a question that both citizens and employees want answered.

Reacting to such challenges, companies position themselves with a company purpose. However, this purpose is still often strongly driven by a marketing outlook. The company purpose is therefore worked out within the old structures: A selected group of managers formulates a purpose that is then communicated inwards and outwards with considerable effort.

A range of perspectives – those that have developed out of the highly diverse employee population, from the clients, sectors of society and the markets – are hardly represented. So far, there has been a lack of real and open dialogue between the interest groups. A shared understanding to provide a basis for a company purpose cannot be developed this way.

Understanding our own identity in the context of the ecosystem: »What are we for?«

Organizations evolve and exist in the context of various stakeholders: markets, clients, competition, partners, society, employees, etc. All of these systems are in continuous exchange and yield an influence on each other. Together, they make up an ecosystem. Since organizations are always part of an ecosystem, they can only arrive at an understanding of their own role within the context of that ecosystem. The identity of an organization is defined through a constant exchange with the ecosystem.

Developing an organization’s identity that can provide meaning and a sense of community must therefore focus on asking:

• What are we for? What is our contribution to our ecosystem?

Any answer to this question that is found only from within the organization will establish a limited and frequently distorted perspective. It is based on hypotheses about the self and the world that were developed along many paths, but never in exchange with that very world, the stakeholders in the own ecosystem.

A true understanding of the own identity requires direct dialogue with the various stakeholders that make up the own ecosystem. It needs to come from a perspective that goes from the outside in:

• What do you need?
• What can we do for you?
• What can we do together?
• How should we be from your point of view, what makes us attractive partners to you?

Dialogue and joint examination of the own ecosystem

We create shared dialogue spaces with the stakeholders of the ecosystem and therefore make it possible to create a joint, multi-perspective debate to achieve a common and shared guiding theme. All relevant viewpoints will find a place where they can learn from and with each other: about themselves, about joint interests, about shared potential. This process then underlies a grasp of the own identity and the own purpose. This guided dialogue allows synergies to emerge. The multi-perspective process expands everyone’s thinking. The processes of creation and implementation come together and establish a high degree of commitment for the joint cause.

Our Approach:

• The organization chooses an overall guiding theme for the dialogue in the ecosystem.
• A suitably wide spectrum of various stakeholders is invited to join in and explore this guiding theme together.
• Shared, relevant questions that pertain to the guiding theme are developed together with the stakeholders.
• Further guiding questions will support the moderation of a substantial and demanding dialogue that is fundamentally set out to take in many perspectives.
• Promising impulses from the dialogue can be adopted and can kick off future initiatives and joint projects.
• The stakeholders can develop further individual conclusions and measures from the shared insights.

The choice of stakeholders is essential to the success of the process. A successful dialogue fosters new insights and therefore needs to start from a sufficient degree of difference. It requires constructive juxtaposition. Here lay the great challenges and the opportunities of multi-perspective dialogue processes: allow differences, let them have an effect and develop deeper, shared insights together with them.

The digital world is a great source of new potential for organizations to foster a cultural change that is more democratic and more tuned into the future in order to address the challenges of an increasingly complex and dynamic world. In future, culture will be even more important in organizations. Culture fills gaps that cannot be bridged by structures and traditional processes alone.

Virtual organization development – Virtual OD by SYNNECTA – provides sustainable support to this aspect.

Cultural change aims to strengthen engagement, heighten performance, improve collaboration, make effective use of diversity and become more agile. It aims for the sustainable development of an organization. Only those organizations that engage in such continuous development will in the future be able to deal with change swiftly and appropriately and maintain long-term success.

Cultural change can take place from two directions

Approach 1: Central perspective – one guiding theme creates a pervasive common notion that is delivered ‘top down’ in order to integrate differences (different characteristics, metaphors, …). Further along, we see the development of islands that network self-sufficiently and influence the central pervasive message.

Approach 2: Synchronous-lateral perspectives – Useful aspects emerge automatically. Peripheral perspectives emerge laterally and enable the required multi-perspective viewpoint from the beginning. Resonance and successful action foster the emergence of new structures, which in turn resonate again and thereby reinforce each other (spiralling development) – self-sufficient organizing. This is where Virtual OD by SYNNECTA opens up great opportunities.

Both approaches take place in conjunction in everyday Organizational Development, but are given different emphasis.

Employee community and identification with the organization serve as social glue. An organization’s strong core identity prevents it drifting apart. Communication within a continuous dialogue that provides emotional touchpoints is an essential guiding element here.

Organizational Development today: limits and challenges

Cultural transformations traditionally begin at the »centre«, meaning from an organization’s headquarters and spreading from this »epicentre« to other areas and through the entire organization in order to become »global«. The direction of change therefore goes from »central« to »local«.

In this process, thinking and acting come from the central perspective of the headquarters from the beginning. This means that the process is asymmetrical from the very start, with a decline from the centre to the periphery. Consequences can include:

• Lack of identification in the peripheral areas that are not part of the centre.
• Weaker acceptance and lacking commitment.
• Difficulties guiding the transformation on global and international levels.
• Varying depths of effect and speeds of implementation between centre and regions.
• The differences between centre and regions stay in place and may even be reinforced or increased (insider/outsider thinking).
• Important perspectives and potential from the periphery is not sufficiently included and utilized.

Successful cultural development always includes self-organized dynamics and therefore requires an approach »across the field« that departs from the notions of »top-down« and »bottom-up«, which reinforce a hierarchical mindset. The real force of renewal is therefore found in the periphery. The digital sphere provides an opportunity to strengthen or improve these aspects.

Digitalization can foster a new Organizational Development

Any organization essentially has the implicit knowledge to be sustainable for the future. However, it is often not understood how to explicitly use this knowledge. Virtual OD by SYNNECTA shifts the dynamics from central to local. At the same time, it provides an opportunity to leave to dominant notion of »top-down« and »bottom-up« behind. Organizational Development at eye level!

The three classic levers of Organizational Development are creating meaning, changing patterns and establishing commonalities. These three levers can be expanded by Virtual OD by SYNNECTA. It allows for the guiding theme to be disseminated with greater conviction (see approach 1), but even more importantly, to design self-sufficient organization more effectively (see approach 2).

The greater efficacy of virtual organizational development is mostly created by the following aspects:

• Time and space are opened, so that simultaneous activity is possible and asymmetries are eliminated.
• Synchronous and asynchronous events/communication/collaboration take place at a global level.
• Fast and high degree of networking among people in the digital space.
• The power of weak joints. Weak joints are the basis of prolific cooperation. Virtual OD by SYNNECTA uses the power of weak joints.
• More outcome thanks to focussed collaboration.
• A greater degree of self-sufficient organization, stronger interaction and involvement.
• More effective dynamics permit themes to spread virally faster.
• Creation of virtual communities (of practice).
• Greater use of creative tension through multi-perspective working in the digital sphere (using diversity).

What moves you?

• Remote work will stay with us!
• How will the dominant position of the headquarters be reduced?
• How do we achieve greater and more sustainable employee engagement?

Contact us!

It is a well-known challenge: how can an organization gain and maintain a recognizable identity that gives direction to the conduct of its entire team? The history of large companies is usually shaped by mergers. Surprisingly, we often find deep-rooted and dominant origins identities there. These may reveal themselves even decades after a merger in people’s attitudes, in their decision-taking, and in the stories that are told. A deep-rooted sense of belonging and emotional ties to the identity of the existing, evolved community, on the other hand, are lacking. Such dynamics are not limited to companies that are shaped by mergers. It is apparent that companies are more and more fragmented. The periphery has gained importance. Different markets that demand different strategies support different self-attributions. The range of working methods is also expanding at speed: agile approaches demand various degrees of self-organization, and these bring with them a range of structures and means of performance as well as different expectations of that performance. There are cracks running through the sense of community that encompasses a company.

A decade ago, the answers that were found for these cracks included finding common values and formulating as well as intensively communicating a brand for the company. To this day, accordingly, such influence is administered via the internal modes of communication in waves: themes include values, leadership behaviour, compliance, as well as individual claims that are meant to describe an overarching identity. Sanctions and their mechanisms evolved at the same time, as is usual within the bureaucratic structures that we cannot escape.

Rhetorical purpose and a more vocal public have fostered the addition of claims that define the company as »good«: helpful and useful for society. At first, there was an easy acceptance that such an identity and its guiding role for personnel conduct would come from within the hierarchical structures. Nowadays, employees and other relevant stakeholders lay claim to their own contribution: they step beyond the boundaries of the company.

Looking at societies and how political communities form, we see that they have each had to confront that very same problem. The educational canon and the teaching of a common language have been central to these processes. While companies have comparable structures in their education and training departments, they only make limited use of the great potential that lies within them. A joint administrative infrastructure is often felt to be a mode of centralization, centring on the »corporate« structure. However, that and the education of elites are further measures that are used to design a common identity. The great festivals in companies go by such names as leadership meetings and company days. Whether they take place in person or in the virtual world: they serve more than anything the celebration of an emotionally designed identity that is created and experienced there. They are celebrations of a community – of »us«. Once this sense of identity has been fostered, however, it is often difficult to translate it into concrete modes of conduct and performance. That is the burden of bureaucratic work.

The peripheries are gaining increasing influence in shaping the steady development of identifiactions. Among other factors, that is due to the greater mobility of those who work on the peripheries of a company: their mode of life relates to reaching rather than keeping.

In short, we are witnessing a constant dynamic in the achievement and strengthening of company identities, using the same means as those by which national identities are formed. Accordingly, there is even now a desire for charismatic leadership, CEOs who visibly represent something and who are able to communicate that something emotionally. Even though our individual projections may differ, we are all looking in the same direction: towards the CEO. That creates our sense of community.

At the same time, however, the classic top-down approaches no longer suffice. Contribution is gaining weight and going beyond a mere »form of communication«. Dialogue is the only key to shaping the kinds of identity that are currently in demand, effective, and able to guide performance. Once again, the process is more important than a »printable« result. Important stakeholders include the entire workforce as well as the shareholders, the management, relevant representatives of the market and nowadays also of societies. It is an extremely challenging enterprise to put such a process of dialogue into action within a large global company. With TheQuestbySynnecta, SYNNECTA has developed models that can shape even expansive and diverse dialogues effectively. They even have a welcome and pleasing side effect: the inside-outside mode of thinking and decision-taking that still has a wide foothold is turned around (or turns itself around), guiding the companies into a new form of outside-inside thinking that is a critical marker of success in these new times of networking.