My view: What we lead companies for

A company has orders. People are working, invoices are being paid and new tasks are added. From the outside, it is functioning. Yet in the evening its owner may think: this is not really how I wanted to live. Or an employee wonders what purpose their work still serves. Perhaps the figures are right, but the way business is conducted no longer fits the people and what matters to them.

My first concern, therefore, is not how to change even more. The question that concerns me is: What do we lead this company for, and whom should it serve?

A company must be able to sustain itself economically. Those who cannot meet their obligations also put others at risk. But economic viability does not yet answer what makes a good company. For me, this includes value for customers, reliable dealings with employees and business partners, responsibility for the environment and a sustainable life for the people who lead the company.

These are not additional decorations for good years. They are standards for the goals we pursue and the means we use to pursue them. Higher turnover can be good. Lower turnover and a more manageable organisation can also contribute to a more meaningful life and more reliable work. What matters is not which option looks bigger, but which is responsible under the actual conditions.

I do not intend this essay to claim that every organisation has lost its purpose. Nor do I want to turn every difficulty into a crisis of inner attitude. Sometimes what is missing is simply specialist knowledge, time or clear responsibilities. Then a practical solution is needed. In other cases, a deeper question is worth asking: have we become accustomed to an idea of success that we no longer consciously chose?

In this essay, by Radical Change I mean a fundamental, genuinely lived reorientation of business leadership: away from unexamined habits and one-sided images of success, towards entrepreneurship that takes the well-being of everyone affected seriously, accepts responsibility and takes responsibility for economic viability.

This is my deliberately evaluative use of the expression. I am not simply describing any profound restructuring. An organisation can also change fundamentally in a bad direction. Research must be able to investigate such cases. Part B therefore also uses a neutral term for fundamental reorientation. My concern is narrower: which direction deserves our commitment?

Here, the word «radical» denotes the depth of a possible change. It prescribes neither a revolution nor a particular pace. Sometimes the first thing to change is the question guiding decisions. Instead of «How can we sell even more?», it becomes: «Which service is really good for our customers, and can we provide it reliably?» Small but binding decisions can follow from this different standard.

I find the reference to the honourable merchant helpful. What is meant is a responsible way of doing business, not a nostalgic image of humanity or an accolade for oneself. In its current guiding principles, the Versammlung Ehrbarer Kaufleute zu Hamburg links, among other things, consideration for third parties, reliability and responsibility for society and the environment. These are normative guiding principles, not a guarantee of success (Versammlung Ehrbarer Kaufleute zu Hamburg, n.d.).

For me, «the well-being of everyone» does not mean fulfilling every wish simultaneously. Interests can conflict. A decision may be necessary and still disappoint someone. What matters is whether those affected are taken seriously, burdens are disclosed and alternatives are examined. A social purpose justifies neither the concealed offloading of unpaid extra work nor shifting risks onto people who have not agreed to them. Voluntary contributions must be recognisable as such and responsible under the circumstances. The owner is also among those affected. Responsibility does not demand her permanent self-sacrifice.

For this attitude to be more than a fine phrase, it must become visible in everyday life: in promises, prices, working conditions, decision rights and the handling of mistakes. Good intentions are a beginning. They do not replace examination of their consequences.

A smaller company as a conscious goal

Imagine a service business. Over the years, its owner has taken on ever more tasks and responsibility. Now he says: I would like to work mainly in my professional field again and manage fewer people.

A premature answer would be: then we need better management software or more growth so that we can pay for an additional manager. Perhaps both would make sense. First, however, we need to clarify what the owner means by «managing less». Does he want some peace after a demanding period? Does he really want to work alone? Or would he like to share responsibility without giving up his company?

The previous guiding assumption might be: a good company must grow, and a good entrepreneur must personally carry that growth. Examining this assumption opens up other possibilities. Perhaps the range of services is deliberately limited. Perhaps tasks are distributed differently. Perhaps an orderly transition is considered. Which option fits is not decided in this thought experiment.

For me, Radical Change would not lie merely in the desire for less work. It might lie in the owner fundamentally reordering his understanding of success and acting responsibly on that basis. Existing obligations to employees, customers and partners belong in this decision. They do not disappear with the new insight.

Social value without maximum returns

A second fictional business continues an activity that generates little surplus. At the same time, the activity creates meaningful employment and social participation. An assessment focused purely on returns might recommend closing it.

Perhaps this recommendation is right. But perhaps an important part of the chosen business purpose is being overlooked. The better question is therefore: what does this area contribute, for whom is that contribution important, and can it be financed fairly over the long term?

Breaking even alone does not answer that question. Unpaid additional work, postponed renewals or a persistent lack of reserves can remain invisible in a simple calculation. Equally, a social benefit can be real even if it does not appear as additional profit. Both belong on the table.

For me, the honourable path consists neither in automatic closure nor in unquestioning continuation. It consists in honestly naming the chosen purpose and its costs. The question of a good company is a qualitative one. Figures help answer it, but do not make the value judgement on our behalf.

«I want less stress» is understandable. For a shared decision, it helps to be more precise: what would be different on an ordinary working day? Which responsibility could someone else reliably take on? What work would I like to do myself again? And what already works so well today that it should stay?

Here I see a connection with Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg. De Shazer explicitly distinguishes a stated goal from the concrete description of a solution. Berg asks about exceptions already experienced and the next small step. These ideas come from a therapeutic approach; their limited application to business conversations is my deduction, not a proven management effect (de Shazer, n.d.; Berg, n.d.).

For me, the implication is this: we should not merely paint a picture of the problem. We should describe the everyday life we want and look for existing possibilities. This also includes asking what is good and should not be «changed away».

This does not mean ignoring risks or declaring every cause unimportant. If a machine is unsafe, an obligation falls due or a responsibility is missing, that must be addressed concretely. A solution-focused conversation and a factual examination are not opponents. They fulfil different tasks.

A useful working question is therefore: What should be better afterwards, for whom, what already contributes to it today, and which next step is responsible under our conditions?

A simple fictional example shows how a different conviction can become a different leadership practice.

A managing director believes that she must personally approve every important customer decision. The result is waiting time. She begins to examine whether responsibility really means controlling everything personally. After discussions, she decides to delegate certain decisions to qualified employees.

Four different things can now happen. She can think differently. She can make a decision. She can actually distribute authority differently. And the new practice can prove itself even when a mistake occurs. These things belong together, but are not the same thing.

If the new authority exists only on paper and is withdrawn at the first uncertainty, little has changed in everyday life. If it is used, a change is observable. Whether that change was good must be examined again. Perhaps customers are served more reliably. Perhaps important risks remain unaddressed. A different practice is not automatically a better practice.

This also makes the distinction between prerequisites, change and consequences tangible. Prerequisites include, for example, ability, time and information. Change consists in new justifications, rules and actions. Consequences become evident in what actually results for customers, employees and the company.

The four research hypotheses in Part B ask further questions about this. Briefly: does a personally endorsed orientation help implementation? Does examining an old assumption remove a specific blockage? Does commitment to a goal, combined with openness to criticism, make decisions more viable? And does a new practice persist when intensive support ends? These are questions to investigate, not four promised recipes for success.

I find an important interlocutor in Frédéric Laloux. In his illustrated edition of Reinventing Organizations, he describes the relationship between worldview and lived management practices. New procedures can remain empty if they do not fit the actual orientation of those responsible. He also emphasises that self-management requires new rules for working together and does not simply mean abolishing supervisors (Laloux, 2016, pp. 63 and 131).

This sharpens my own question: how can an attitude be recognised in concrete work? Who receives the information? Who may decide? How is disagreement expressed? How is an unsuitable decision corrected?

Among other things, Laloux describes an advice process: before a decision, experts and those substantially affected are consulted, without necessarily requiring unanimity. He also names shared orientation, accessible information and a forum for discussion as prerequisites for self-correction (Laloux, 2016, pp. 68-73 and 145-146).

I do not adopt from this a ready-made vision for every company. Not every organisation needs to become free of hierarchy. A justified right of control can also protect people. What matters to me is whether responsibility, empowerment and correction fit together. A procedure that promises freedom and leaves accountability unclear is not enough for that.

Precisely here lies the difference between a new slogan and changed leadership. The new attitude must take a form in which people can actually act differently. And that form must remain open to feedback.

My thinking did not develop exclusively in companies. In my article Firma Christentum im Bankrott, I deliberately used the analogy between Christian communities and companies. Even there, the concerns were purpose, lived conviction, servant leadership, responsibility and the danger that structures displace the original mission. At the same time, I expressly did not call for a church simply to be run like a company (Hosang, 2023, pp. 38 and 46-50).

What interests me in this analogy is a recurring question: does the shared activity still serve what people came together for? Or are they now primarily organising the continued existence of the organisation?

In a family, too, shared time, tasks, habits and differing needs can become matters for discussion. That does not make a family a company. Relationships and personal dignity do not depend on whether someone makes an economic contribution. A child is neither a resource nor a project whose performance should be optimised.

Nevertheless, I consider it useful to take stock together from time to time. Stephen R. Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families offers a connection here. The official description of the work mentions family discussions, keeping promises and aligning personal and shared needs. This does not imply a prescribed workshop format for every family (FranklinCovey, n.d.-a).

Covey illustrates shared orientation through the image of a flight. Despite deviations along the way, a clear destination, a flight plan and a compass help to check and correct the course (Covey, 1997/2023, p. 11). I find a useful thought in this: shared orientation does not have to prevent every detour. It should help us notice deviations and make responsible corrections.

A SWOT analysis can serve as a conversation aid. First, however, its purpose must be clear. «Strengths» and «weaknesses» should then describe shared processes and possibilities, not the worth of individual family members. Opportunities and threats direct attention towards the surrounding environment. The classification does not yet resolve a conflict or determine who is right. More important than the method is that every person is heard and nobody imposes a ready-made goal on everyone else.

I am interested in the architecture of relationships: people reach an understanding about what they cooperate for, contribute time, abilities and other means, develop expectations and have to deal with deviations. I apply this perspective to companies and congregations as well as families, married couples and circles of friends. What they share is not their precise organisational form, but the question of what sustains their cooperation. Not every relationship has an explicitly agreed goal; some things remain unspoken or disputed. That itself can make clarification necessary.

The comparison is not intended to reduce relationships to their usefulness. A friendship is not a small company. For me, similar questions can nevertheless be helpful: what connects us? What does each individual need? What can we rely on? How do we distribute limited time and responsibility? And how do we talk about it when our actual behaviour does not fit what matters to us? Rights, dependencies and scope for shaping things remain different in each area of life.

From my work on a Go-to-Market model, I know a practical distinction: an assumption is not yet a robust approach. Initial positive experiences do not yet amount to repeatability. And a repeatable approach is not yet viable under all conditions.

The publicly described Go-to-Market steering model distinguishes maturity levels 0 «Hypotheses», 1 «Initial signals», 2 «Repeatable», 3 «Measurable» and 4 «Scalable». It explicitly assesses individual process phases, not the company as a whole (Hosang Consulting, n.d., section «Reifegrad je Prozessphase (0-4)»).

For the essay, I take from this a limited discipline of thought: a claim, initial experience and reliably lived practice are different things. I do not turn this into a ladder of human maturity. A readily measurable sales process can serve a bad purpose. A small company can act responsibly without wanting to scale. And a family does not need to become scalable at all.

Three questions therefore need separate answers: how reliably does an activity work? What orientation underlies it? And what consequences does it have for those affected? A single maturity score would conceal these differences.

This distinction also guards against a misunderstanding of Radical Change. It is not an award for particularly modern organisations. Those who already take their responsibility seriously do not first have to question everything to be «further ahead». Deliberate preservation can be just as justified as a fundamental reorientation.

My Christian faith is part of my thinking. I want neither to hide it nor to impose it on others as a prerequisite. The terms are intended to make a connection understandable, not to turn religious language into an entry ticket to the essay.

When people speak of a «sweet sin» in everyday German, they usually do not mean a theological judgement. Clarity is needed here too: the organisational analogy concerns missing the goal, not the religious condemnation of people. The Greek word family around hamartia and hamartanein offers an image of missing the mark. But whether an action misses the goal can only be said once that goal and its legitimacy have been clarified. Missing a turnover target alone does not make anyone morally guilty. In biblical usage, hamartia has additional meanings of wrongdoing and guilt; these do not become a business indicator (Mounce, n.d.-a, n.d.-b).

I use «religious» with similar care. One traditional interpretation connects the Latin religio with religare, meaning to bind or bind back. Alongside it stands the older interpretation through relegere, carefully going through again and attending to. The origin has not been conclusively established. Religare does not simply mean «following regulations» (Cicero, 1933, II.72; Lactantius, 1886, IV.28; Dudenredaktion, n.d.-f).

My bridge to business leadership is consciously lived commitment. Governance asks how orientation and responsibility are organised; compliance asks about meeting applicable obligations. Both can protect the shared purpose. Blind compliance is not enough for me, however: rules must serve their responsible purpose and remain open to examination through suitable channels. This parallel does not turn a conscientious person into a religious person or a company into a faith community.

In the Bible, I see a related connection between orientation and action. The Ten Commandments stand in a relational context. Jesus connects the commandment with love for God and one's neighbour; 1 Timothy 1,5 names love as the aim of instruction. My analogy is this: a good purpose should become recognisable in actions and limits, not only in a heading (Lutherbibel 2017, Ex 20,1-17; Mt 22,34-40; 1 Tim 1,5).

Ellen G. White is a source for individual spiritual reflections, not for empirical proof of better business leadership. Neither readers nor business partners need to accept her religious authority. Part B and the glossary distinguish word history, theological meaning and my own organisational application.

I am not looking for a model that prescribes the same change for every company. I want to understand viable structures and relationships better: forms of cooperation that provide orientation, enable responsibility and remain able to learn under strain. In my observations, some relationships seem sustained from within, while others seem fragile. I am interested in what makes this difference, without assuming a single cause in advance.

By this, I do not mean only an organisation chart. People, goals, available means, trust, rules and feedback interact. Inner conviction is important, but replaces neither ability nor time and reliable agreements. A viable relationship can withstand criticism and change. Its survival at any price is not my goal; a fair separation or ending an untenable undertaking can also be responsible.

The beginning may be an honest question. Perhaps it leads to a different priority, a more limited offering or more responsibility for others. Perhaps it becomes clear that a proven practice should be preserved. Sometimes such examination leads to fundamental change. Sometimes it prevents an unnecessary reorganisation.

In my understanding, Radical Change is not about as much change as possible. It means a fundamental, lived reorientation of leadership towards a responsible purpose and the well-being of those affected. Readiness for it can open the way; it is not yet the accomplished change. Change gains its depth where assumptions that previously guided action are actually altered and sustain a different practice. Deliberately preserving a practice that is already responsible remains valuable, even without the label Radical Change. Where only new words emerge, the work remains undone.

This view may grow through experience and mature through counterarguments. The following chapters disclose which ideas are already discussed scientifically, what the sources actually support and where my own interpretation begins.