How does effective leadership work? The adjective "effective" sounds almost like a buzzword, but it is actually essential: If we do not achieve an effect, i.e. if we do not make a difference, then the question arises as to the meaning of our actions. And about the justification for our job. Yet despite this, any number of employees, especially in large companies, don't seem to deliver results. Why is that and what can be done about it?
Actually, it is completely simple to achieve a result: We think about where we want to go (destination), we look at where we are (start), we look at the most efficient distance between the two (path), and we run. If we do not stray from the path, we arrive: There really is no way around the destination.
Well - if only it were that simple! People in companies often fail because they don't know where they stand. But, this really happens: An employee is supposed to develop product ideas without knowing the technical status quo and the market situation - the "results" of these considerations will hardly deserve the name "results". So getting started really only makes sense once the status quo has been analyzed as comprehensively as possible.
Others do not know where they want to go: The instruction is to inform the press about a new product, but it is completely unclear which media the target group consumes. Again, the employee is working for the trash and is far away from any form of a "result" as envisioned by his boss.
Many also simply run any processes without direction in order to demonstrate activity - and actually feel after work that they have achieved something. Although they have achieved nothing. The horror for every manager!
Let's look at the word "result" first, because that is imprecise. What is meant are "meaningful" or "desired" results. Strictly speaking, there are always some results, even if the result is that the concept is in the wastepaper basket. In other words, if our colleague delivers a list of useless product ideas, from his point of view he has definitely delivered a result. Why does he see it that way? Because he has invested eight hours of time and because the list comprises three A4 pages. That's work!
Yes, that's how process-oriented thinkers think. "Process-oriented" means that if we follow a process, that's "work." Even if the process is completely pointless. From an executive's perspective, it's not work, it's a waste of resources.
In principle, there is nothing wrong with process orientation - if the processes are cleverly defined. But they are not, if the location is not clear or the goal is uncertain. And a process is also not set up sensibly if the method is wrong.
The antithesis to this process-oriented thinking is results-oriented thinking - and this means meaningful results. And many managers struggle to teach their employees how to think in terms of results. Especially when dealing with process-oriented thinkers, this often seems hopeless.
So when leaders want "results", they want "meaningful results". And with "effect" not just any effect is meant, but a specific one. A result is only meaningful if it corresponds to the desired goal. Only that is meant by "effect". So only when a result actually corresponds to the goal can we speak of a "success".
And a close miss is also a miss: If a result does not meet the goal, it is only in exceptional cases a collateral benefit - like the famous example of the "Post-its", which were a chance hit as a new product after research had gone in a completely different direction. Such meaningful results achieved by luck are rather rare, we should not rely on them.
So guiding people to "impact" is the big task. How can we communicate how to have an impact?
In addition to distinguishing between meaningful and meaningless outcomes, another crucial factor plays a role here: knowing the big goal. Surely you know this in the Coaching- and leadership literature often quoted parable of the cathedral: A walker asks construction workers what they are doing. The first says, "I'm pounding bricks." The second says, "I'm building a wall." The third says, "I'm building a cathedral." The third builder knows the goal; he works with a sense of purpose. And in the same way, it is important that all employees know the big picture, that is, the purpose of their work.
Young people in particular - generations Y and Z, who know little or nothing of life without digitization - want meaningful jobs today. The values are often sustainability, environmental protection, philanthropy, social participation, integration and justice. A person motivated by such values will not deliver "service by the book", because he or she is intrinsically driven by meaning.
It may not be expected that even the bulk of frustrated employees will become meaning-oriented socially engaged humanitarians. But if you, as a leader, succeed in identifying and communicating the meaning of the big picture, the people on your team can feel something like a sense of purpose and fulfillment. If you know what great cause you are contributing to, you increase your Self-worth.
And another Inspiration on the subject of sense orientation: The larger a company is, the more complex the web of processes. It may be that some processes no longer lead to the goal and are in need of renewal, but in essence, the majority of process management in companies is intended to be somewhat results-oriented.
If employees now understand that basically everyone in the company contributes only a small part to the overall result and not just them, then they also put aside the thinking of the "cog in the wheel". Everyone fulfills their important functions. Each and every individual is important for a company to achieve its higher achieve one's aim can.
Finally, there are employees who may fundamentally understand what the big picture is, but who still do not work in a results-oriented manner. One method for finding the causes here is business coaching. Unlike a consultant who comes to the company and gives tips, a good business coach inquires about the causes. business coach the reasons for behaviour.
Reasons for not work in a results-oriented mannerthere are plenty of them. It can be due to bad experiences, thought patterns and even banalities such as an unapproved new office chair. Managers can guess around for a long time with their classic leadership methods, and sanctions under labor law do not lead to the goal either. The classic methods of classic managers don't help here either.
A good coach now goes into an exchange with the employee in question and simply asks questions - according to a certain method, which is one of the coaching techniques. In this way, a coach slowly works his way to the reasons for the behaviour. Once the reasons are on the table, the coach and the employee (the one being coached, i.e. the "coachee") can look at where the behavior is leading in the long run and - if it is not nice in the long run from the employee's point of view either - how it can be changed.
