Leadership | Executives in conversation
What does "leadership" mean to you, Dr Merkert?
From Sabine Walter, Head of network management consulting | coaching
For the Head of Innovation & Technologies of the E.G.O. Elektro-Gerätebau GmbH in Oberderdingen, Dr Patricie Merkert, leadership comprises two aspects: Enabling the development of potential and visionary thinking. In an interview with Sabine Walter, she explains what attracts her to leadership and how she succeeds in getting the best out of people and their teams.
Leadership means having visions and getting the best out of people.
S.W.: What does leadership mean to you?
Leadership for me includes Two central aspects. For one thing, To get the best out of people and, on the other hand, to have a visionary idea of where the journey should lead to.
When I join a new team, as I am currently doing, I take a lot of time for the people right from the start. I want to understand them: What makes each and every one of them tick? What makes them tick? What do they burn for? What else is inside them? And how can I tease that out? For me, developing people is a central part of leadership.
The other part is, as I said, Have an idea of where the journey should go. But that doesn't mean it's all about my imagination. It is important to me that I develop this image, this vision, together with the team. They should also burn for it. Their hearts should be in it. Only then will we find a common way to bring this vision to life.
So: Where do we want to go? How do we get there? How can I win over each individual? And how do I get them to contribute their full potential? These questions define leadership for me.
Leadership also means letting go.
There is something else that just occurred to me. Leadership also means letting go. An example: If employees develop so much that they no longer have the space they need with me to develop further, then I let them go - even if that is difficult. I am still in contact with a staff member I let go of because we value each other as sparring partners.
And of course there are also staff members for whom, despite all my efforts, I cannot help them to develop. Maybe because I'm not the right person for it. Then I have to accept that.
For years I questioned myself a lot in such situations. I now understand that the chemistry between two people has to be right for development to happen. And if this chemistry is not right, the basis of trust that is necessary for development can never develop. In such cases, it is my job as a leader to address this and give this employee the chance to work with another leader.
Developing potential needs trust, time and open communication.
S.W.: How do you manage to tease out the potential of your employees in your everyday management work?
It's different for every person. But there are a few basic things that I always do. The first is open and proactive communication. I talk a lot with my colleagues, I tell them about myself. As I said, I took over a new team a few months ago and was in the situation of building trust. From scratch. It helps that I am a person who finds it easy to give everyone a great Leap of faith True to the motto: "Everyone only wants good things". Of course, there have been situations in the past where this trust was disappointed. Nevertheless, I hold on to it because the majority of colleagues open up more quickly because they sense the attitude with which I approach them.
Besides, my colleagues know where they stand with me. My very first boss once said to me: "Dr Merkert, what I like about you is that you are pragmatic and straight forward". At that time I had no idea what "pragmatic" meant. I had to look it up in the dictionary. And when I learned the meaning, I saw that he recognised it well and got to the point. And I think this direct manner of mine also contributes to the fact that employees quickly trust me.
What else do I do? I give the colleagues concrete tasks. On the basis of these I find out how the individual approaches these tasks, how they solve them, how they communicate with me during them. I find out what they enjoy and what they don't. I want to understand very quickly what makes people tick and how they work. With some of them, I notice immediately that they are burning for something and "dig in". Then the spark jumps and I see how I can support these colleagues. With the others, it takes a little more time.
Many managers do not understand what their employees need in order to develop.
S.W.: You have experienced many different leaders in the course of your career. What are the biggest mistakes that leaders make?
I think the biggest problem is to correctly assess what someone can and cannot do. And to assess what the person needs in order to develop. There are many managers who don't assess their employees properly, or who don't look at them properly in the first place. The consequence is usually that leaders are too restrictive and thus block development or unfolding. This can happen, for example, through too much control, through a lack of openness for new ways, through a lack of responsibility that is transferred - to name just a few.
I lead because I want to shape.
S.W.: What was your personal driver to take on leadership responsibility?
The desire to lead goes back to a very early experience that shaped me. I was in the scouts as a child. And in scouting, you usually become a group leader at some point. I had my first group leader responsibility when I was 12. And I failed. That was during a three-week camp. There were older teenagers in my group and they challenged me so much that I gave up my group leadership while still at the camp. This was a good experience, da I realised that I would not be successful the way I was leading. I learned in those three weeks that I will only be successful as a leader if I work with the team and not against it.
But since I am someone who likes to play and likes to win, I did not let this experience deter me. On the contrary. I led a group in camp every year from the age of 13 until one year I led the whole camp. That was my first leadership experience. But the driver for me was and is to take responsibility for achieving a good result. A result that I can play a significant role in shaping. This is still the case today. When I do something, I do it one hundred percent. And, of course, that also includes welding the people together in such a way that something really good comes out of it.
People grow when they have the opportunity to try things out and make mistakes.
S.W.: You are also a mother. What parallels do you see between raising children and leadership?
The thing that comes to mind off the top of my head is, Giving children the opportunity to try things out and make mistakes. With my head - and especially as an innovation leader - I know that making mistakes and failing is an important part of the development process. But as a mother, you want to protect your own children from making mistakes.
My children were a good school for me to "practise" at home what I do as a boss. In the end, I jumped over my shadow and let go. I let my children "do it". And the developmental steps are impressive. Even if the path was anything but straight and smooth.
We need more leaders who see themselves as potential developers and who can inspire for a vision.
S.W.: At the beginning of our conversation, you defined leadership with two big buzzwords, visionary thinking and promoting the development of potential. How many leaders do that in your view?
Very few.
Looking back myself, there have been exactly two people in my career of over twenty years. One of them was my very first boss. He gave me the space to develop and I used it. The other leader who shaped and developed me was a managing director. He -without having to or being required to in any development programme- took on the role of a mentor. Our professional collaboration has long ended, but we still keep in regular contact and exchange ideas. I appreciate that very much.
A paradigm shift in leadership results in more entrepreneurial success.
S.W.: Let's assume that more managers were to live this understanding of leadership, what opportunities would then arise for the companies?
More moneyTo put it bluntly. We would have much more utilised potential, much more satisfied employees who, on the one hand, transfer their satisfaction to customers and, on the other hand, are much more committed and turn ideas into processes, products and services, and thus into "money".
If it were possible, then the big picture, i.e. the Vision, to create and to mediate, companies would be more successful because one direction is clear and people are not running in 15 different directions and conflicts of objectives arise, which are fought out at the lowest working level and in which employees wear themselves out.
Companies that have a clear picture, which is supported by everyone and then also ensure that everyone can develop their potential, would also find it much easier to get the right talent to implement what they have in mind and ultimately be successful in business.
Dr Patricie Merkert studied physics, obtained a doctorate in materials science and an MBA in parallel to her career. She worked in various industries as a development and innovation manager and, since November 2019, has been responsible for the Innovation & Technologies division of E.G.O. Elektro-Gerätebau GmbH in Oberderdingen.
