Leadership | Modern Leadership Approaches

What is humanistic leadership for you, Ms Wackernagel?

The interview was conducted by Sabine Walter, Head of netzwerk managementberatung | coaching

What is humanistic leadership?

Humanistic leadership is not so much about a specific method that a leader uses, nor is it about a specific cluster of behaviours. Similarly, it is secondary to whether a leader's intention is to realise a socially desirable corporate purpose or output. Humanistic leadership rather describes the understanding of human beings on the basis of which the people in the company are influenced and the corresponding leadership instruments are chosen. The humanistic understanding of people is based on the assumption that each of us has the ability to develop into a "better" version of ourselves. 

S.W.: What does that mean for companies?

If framework conditions are created in which a person can live out strengths, competencies as well as personal interests in their work, for example, and this is associated with a positive response, they become a better version of themselves. That is:

• Identify productivity and motivation killers with people first.
• As company management, take personal responsibility for eliminating them.
• Let them help shape the essential things.
• Give them space to grow, because they will use it.

Companies can therefore ask their employees what really motivates them, in which situations they experience their work as particularly meaningful and joyful, what really positively influences their productivity and in which areas of corporate development they would like to be involved. The task of the management is primarily to remove every single obstacle so that the colleagues can simply do their job really well and with pleasure.

S.W.: I think that sounds feasible, especially since approaches to it can also be found in the transformational leadership model.

It can be done. However, consistent people-centred leadership requires courage, because a company's management first has to decouple itself from what is considered successful in our society - financial growth. This already makes it difficult for listed companies to make such a cultural change. 

The paradox is this: If you ask companies what value the health of their employees has, almost all of them will give it priority and mention things like mindfulness courses, sports and massage offers. But all of these are health protection measures that are separate from regular work. New forms of work, which have a much more significant impact on health, are all too often mere lip service, serving more as a marketing tool. 

Company managements are invited to question how powerfully the goal of "strengthening the health of employees" is really implemented in the company.. Is the company prepared to accept financial losses in the short and medium term in order to sustainably and consistently change potentially harmful structures? And even if the answer to the last question is "yes", it takes staying power. Because the humanistic leadership approach is far from conflict-free. There is always a need to balance the needs of the different individuals in an organisation. If everyone wants to grow and develop, there will always be friction, routines will be in the minority, changes will be the order of the day. To use this friction productively requires a high degree of personal maturity, a strongly developed ability to deal with conflict and an open and trusting communication culture.

S.W.: That sounds understandable.

Why should entrepreneurs nevertheless engage with this leadership approach?

That is a legitimate question. I recommend that company management and executives take a look at the sobering results of occupational science that have been largely ignored for decades: Work not only makes a large proportion of people ill, but also massively limits people's potential. Companies still choose specific aspects of a person to bring to work, neglecting the larger part of the personality. This severely limits creative possibilities and thus the influence on the further development of the company.

In the next step, company management is thus invited to look at the increase in productivity - in the sense of economic efficiency - that a company experiences when it provides a healthy breeding ground. People's productivity increases enormously when they can contribute a wide range of their skills and interests. If we only ever use a fraction of them, the unused skills not only go to waste, but also the motivation to work steadily decreases. 

I would like to take you on a mental journey: Just suppose that management succeeds in leading in a people-centred way, resulting in a high level of physical and mental health among its employees. Healthy people affect their environment in a healthy way. This increases the likelihood that the company will want to positively impact the health of the company's customers through its product and service offerings, as well as have a healthy relationship with the natural environment.

S.W.: A question has just arisen in my mind that I would like to explain with an example first. Let's take the profession of a cleaner. There are certainly people whose fulfilment it is to keep rooms clean. However, I am convinced that the significantly larger proportion of cleaners in our country do this job in order to somehow make a living and would change professions if they could. Hence the question: 

How mature is our society for such a leadership approach?

I don't have a conclusive answer to this, but I do have thoughts that I derive from holocratic systemics. The community of a company could benefit from a person not being associated with a specific function in the company in the future. 'Hence, there is no longer "the cleaner". Here, too, a mental excursion: If company management implement this leadership approach, they will lead their employees to discover further strengths and interests in themselves or develop existing ones. If these new interests and strengths are put into practice, this will sooner or later lead to the development of competencies that at some point can no longer be integrated into a function or a narrowly defined area of responsibility. Now some may say, "That's just like classic continuing education." True, but with one decisive difference: This increase in competence and the further development of one's own personality is achieved by all workers in the company - regardless of education or hierarchy. This means that all people in an organisation can easily take on several roles in the company.

The "cleaner" - to stay with your example - is encouraged in her learning to be able to fill other roles - if she wants to. This in turn can go hand in hand with a higher level of responsibility and thus contribute to a higher salary - if companies still want to link salaries to basic training or a level of responsibility. Conversely, a person working in controlling, for example, may find it enriching to spend two hours a day doing cleaning tasks in the company. This would meet the body's need for movement and also contribute to the recovery of mental resources. 

None of this is really new and more and more company managements are interested in dissolving unproductive power structures and realising more meaningful forms of cooperation and togetherness in the company. Therefore, yes, society is ripe for it.

But perhaps it is important at this point to delineate once again what humanistic leadership is not. Humanistic leadership is not grassroots democracy - nor is participatory leadership, for that matter.

S.W.: What do you mean by that?

In order to make a decision, it is not necessary to have the explicit consent of all those concerned. Rather, it is about understanding who would like to be involved in which issues. Many people can live very well with the consequences of other people's decisions. But when it comes to very specific issues, they want to be heard, to have their say or to be involved in decision-making. When leaders understand who or which stakeholders want to be involved in which issues and take this into account in decision-making, not only the quality of decisions increases, but also the acceptance and stringency in implementation. 

S.W.: But aren't we already at that point in many companies?

Employee participation continues to be very limited - especially when looking at participation in strategic decisions and related changes. However, my research proves that innovations are implemented with a much higher degree of effectiveness the more intensively people have been able to contribute their requirements and interests. 

But the road to this can be a long one, because employees first have to gain trust that their commitment is actually wanted. Moreover, coordination processes are very complex and offer a lot of potential for conflict. Getting involved requires courage and competence in moderating decision-making processes. If these participation processes are only conducted half-heartedly, the shot will backfire. Trust is destroyed, commitment is destroyed. Therefore, changing the decision-making culture in companies is a cultural transformation. 

How should an entrepreneur proceed who wants to align his organisation with the humanistic leadership approach?

Business leaders who are attracted to the humanistic view of humanity are invited to start by answering many questions honestly:

• What current image of people shapes my current dealings with my employees and influences the expectations I have of them? 
• What basic understanding or motives influence my behaviour? 
• Which top priority guides my further decisions? 
• Do I really care about the concerns of the workforce or do I want to influence people's productivity primarily to increase profits? 

The management and executives to whom the latter applies will probably take little pleasure in engaging in an intensive exchange with their colleagues. All others determine what price they are willing to pay for a structural change in the company. What short- or medium-term profit losses can they cope with without associating this with (personal) failure?

The third phase of preparation again invites self-reflection on a personal level: 

• In which situations do you experience your work as particularly meaningful and joyful? 
• What really influences your productivity? 
• Which potential that is inherent in you would you like to give more space to in the future?
• What would you simply like to experience with the people in the company - even if there is no broad consensus for it so far?

Managers who have found clear answers for themselves can now ask their employees these questions. In the next step, they identify the most pressing development areas in the company. Which stakeholders should bring their perspective to the table? In a continuous process, managers ask employees again and again in which areas of corporate development they would like to contribute, which problem or issue they would like to work on. This promotion of self-efficacy and acceptance of responsibility strengthens the long-term health of companies, their competitiveness and thus also their economic success.

Stephanie Wackernagel studied psychology and industrial design and supports companies in the implementation of new work models and work infrastructures. As part of her work at the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering IAO, she researched the approach of transformational corporate management. She currently teaches at the Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences on the topic of "Leadership" and is in continuous exchange with company managers who have integrated the humanistic understanding into their leadership model.