Back to principles

In depth

Collaboration and leadership

A view of people does not change an organisation simply by being put into words. Values only become effective when they show in behaviour, collaboration, structures and leadership decisions.

Culture does not arise from written values alone. It arises from repeated behaviour, supportive structures and the decisions of leadership.

My way of working

Listening. Listening is not only about maintaining relationships, but about gaining insight. I try to understand statements, interests, experiences, fears and unspoken assumptions before proposing solutions.

Honesty with respect. I do not gloss over a situation to preserve short-term harmony. I name reality, risks, contradictions and limits clearly. Honesty is directed against self-deception and ineffectiveness, not against a person's dignity.

I do not always promise emotional comfort. I promise clarity, respect, responsibility and support.

Empathy and confrontation. Empathy means taking the other person's perspective and burden seriously, not avoiding necessary statements. Good confrontation is factual, concrete, verifiable and aimed at development. It does not humiliate and does not attack the person.

Structuring. I do not resolve complexity by simplifying at any price. I break it down into understandable elements, dependencies, decisions and responsibilities, so that orientation emerges without losing relevant connections.

Visibility. Goals, decisions and their reasons, assumptions, risks, roles, progress, blockers and impact are made visible.

Trust as a working principle

For me, trust is not just an interpersonal value. It affects how quickly information flows, decisions are made and responsibility can be taken. Where trust is missing, friction costs arise: more safeguarding, more approval loops, more control, information held back and slower decisions.

Trust replaces neither governance nor necessary control. The principle is: as much trust as possible, as much control as the risk requires. Control should manage risks, not mask a lack of trust. Trust without responsibility can become naive; responsibility without trust easily ends in micromanagement.

Understanding creates clarity. Clarity enables trust. Trust enables responsibility. Responsibility reduces unnecessary friction.

What change in an organisation needs

In people: self-reflection, openness to other perspectives, honesty about knowledge and non-knowledge, recognising assumptions as assumptions, willingness to learn, taking responsibility and readiness to correct decisions.

In collaboration: being able to disagree respectfully, being allowed to voice uncertainty, not having to hide mistakes. Criticism of a statement is not rejection of the person, clarity is not the same as harshness, and consensus is not the same as avoiding conflict.

In structures: An organisation can demand personal responsibility and at the same time prevent it through its structures. That is why it needs clear roles, traceable decision paths, access to information, working feedback channels, clear escalation paths, room for reflection and incentives that reward impact and responsibility.

Leadership

Leaders shape culture particularly strongly, because employees observe which behaviour is actually rewarded, tolerated or punished. Good leadership asks questions instead of only providing answers, allows disagreement, admits its own errors, explains decisions in a traceable way, does not push responsibility downwards and shares in the consequences of its decisions.

My understanding of leadership: Leadership is service to the mission, to people and to responsibility. Servant leadership does not mean leniency, avoiding conflict or giving up authority. It means using power not for one's own status, but for the shared mission and the development of people. This includes taking full responsibility: for the mission, the conditions, communication, decisions and consequences. The cause of a problem is not looked for in others first.

  • Serving rather than serving oneself.
  • Taking responsibility instead of passing on blame.
  • Creating clarity, even when it is uncomfortable.
  • Drawing consequences without humiliating people.
  • Not confusing love and respect with indifference.
  • Enabling freedom and making responsibility binding.
  • Admitting one's own mistakes and visibly learning from them.
Servant leadership does not protect against consequences. It ensures that consequences serve the mission, the truth, the people affected and long-term impact.

From value to practice

Lead by example → Practise → Structure → Enable → Review

  • Leaders show the expected behaviour themselves.
  • New forms of collaboration are applied repeatedly and improved.
  • Roles, processes and decision paths are adjusted.
  • People receive information, skills, authority and protected spaces.
  • It is observed whether the desired way of working actually works in everyday life.

A culture is not considered introduced as long as it only exists on paper.

Room for honesty and disagreement

People only voice uncertainty, mistakes and disagreement openly if they can expect their statements to be taken seriously and not used against them.

I do not demand honesty without creating conditions in which honesty is possible.
  • Separating: I distinguish as clearly as possible between facts, perceptions, judgements, assumptions, fears and interests.
  • Allowing for not knowing: “We don't know that yet”, “We are assuming that”, “We are worried about that” are expressly permitted statements.
  • Inviting disagreement: It is not just tolerated but sought, for example through counter-questions and structured opposing positions.
  • Minding power gaps: Depending on the situation, I hold conversations separately, confidentially or with facilitation.
  • Clarifying confidentiality: It is agreed in advance what remains confidential and where the limits lie.
  • Mistakes as learning information: neither romanticised nor punished across the board. I distinguish between an understandable mistake, missing knowledge, a structural problem, negligence and deliberate deception.
  • Ground rules: Criticise statements, not people; label assumptions; ask rather than impute motives.
  • Escalation: People must know how they can raise problems directly, confidentially or through defined channels. Escalation is not failure, but a necessary structure.
  • Limits: A safe space protects honest exchange, but not personal attacks, deception, threats, discrimination or a lasting refusal to take responsibility.

To this end, I use, among other things, confidential one-to-one interviews, shared ground rules, lists of facts and assumptions, facilitated conflict conversations, decision logs and retrospectives.

A self-test for your organisation

  • Can people say openly that they don't know something?
  • Can employees disagree with a manager on reasoned grounds?
  • Are mistakes reported early or hidden for as long as possible?
  • Are quiet or hierarchically weaker voices heard?
  • Is bad news received objectively?
  • Does honest disagreement remain free of personal disadvantage?
If relevant information is not voiced out of fear, because of power gaps or a lack of trust, the basis for decisions is incomplete.