Svenja Hofert

Svenja Hofert
The Agile
Mindset
Developing Employees,
Shaping the Future of Work
The Agile Mindset
Svenja Hofert
The Agile Mindset

Developing Employees, Shaping
the Future of Work
Svenja Hofert
Hamburg, Germany
ISBN 978-3-658-34909-7 ISBN 978-3-658-34910-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34910-3
© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022

This book is a translation of the original German edition „Das agile Mindset“ by Hofert, Svenja,
published by Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH in 2018. The translation was done with
the help of artificial intelligence (machine translation by the service DeepL.com). A subsequent
human revision was done primarily in terms of content, so that the book will read stylistically
differently from a conventional translation. Springer Nature works continuously to further the
development of tools for the production of books and on the related technologies to support
the authors.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or
part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
GmbH part of Springer Nature.
The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany
Preface
Dear Reader,
Everyone is talking about mindset. It has to fit in with agility, with New Work –
with the kind of work and leadership that is so trendy in these turbulent times. But
what exactly is mindset? And what does a mindset require, i.e., a logic of thought
and action that fits an agile environment and company? To the challenges posed by
digitalization and the cultural change that inevitably accompanies it, of which not
everyone is yet aware?
Before I elaborate further, I would like to introduce here what I mean by “agile”
and “agility,” because this can be understood quite differently and on different
levels:
1. Agility as a philosophy
2. Agility as an attitude
3. Agility as an approach to corporate management
4. Agility as an approach to personnel management with a focus on promoting
self-organized teams
5. Agility as a process framework
I’m sure there are more. In this book, we are interested in levels 1–3. Level 1 is the
starting point for levels 2–4, which do not really exist in my opinion. And level 5
works considerably better (or only properly at all) if levels 1–3 are included.
With that quick clarification, I am also introducing my stance in a way.
With the book Agiler führen (Agile Leadership), I have reached thousands of
readers and many decision makers. One of the main reasons was that I presented
the topic in a differentiated way and with an appropriate critical distance. I did not
v
vi Preface
make myself an ally of agility prophets because I do not believe in promises of

salvation. I have made the experience that not every company needs radical changes
tomorrow. So I did something that was not very popular in the book market for a
while. I looked at a topic from different directions and presented it in its different
facets, without the intention of promoting one’s own approach as new and selling a
particular method.
You can expect the same approach from this book. I will not give you easy solu-
tions, that is not my mindset. However, you will get a guide that you can do a lot
with and for a long time, even beyond the time of the hype. Because agility will
most certainly be scaled back again, counter trends will be proclaimed, and that is
already happening. And there will be something new, most likely something that
has already existed. Management is like fashion.
I may also be sneaky. I am introducing a topic via agility for which there has
only been a niche market: ego development. This empirical model proves that peo-
ple develop their mindset in a certain way even in adulthood. Only a certain phase
in this development of the logic of thinking and acting makes it possible to work
effectively in a self-organization or to drive change processes. Companies that are
serious about agility should develop people into self-responsibility. In general, I
think development is central to the future of work. People have to adapt to a way of
thinking that should be fundamentally different from the thinking of the industrial
age if we do not want Taylorism 2.0. And not just in terms of content, but also
structurally. In other words, it is no longer enough to ramp up knowledge. We need
a completely different way of dealing with it, a new way of organizing it, perhaps
we should even do without it more and more, since there is more and more artificial
intelligence.
Some people call me a trend sniffer. For more than 20 years, I have been sensing
what is coming next from time to time. Somehow it was clear to me early that the
agility wave would be followed by the mindset wave. Simply because I saw that
agile was failing in so many places – because of people’s mindset. Many people
just don’t realize how people learn and what they need to make their mindset more
receptive. And, God, I do not mean that in the sense of increasing memory capacity.
I mean it in the sense of changing the memory device itself.
We need to clean that up a bit. I detect two exaggerations and little in between:
In one exaggeration, the prevailing thinking is that it is enough to consistently and
unconditionally give people opportunities to take responsibility on the assumption
that they will use them. This belief usually comes across as supposedly systemi-
cally underpinned. The other exaggeration sees people as unable to move signifi-
cantly out of their comfort zone, has an entrenched image, and assumes people are
Preface vii
largely unchangeable. They both are true, they both are not true, and in the end
something third or none of the above applies. So let’s look for the new.
Many think that agile competencies can be trained, just like the agile frame-
works. Some experts even define competencies that you have to learn with a certain
mindset. You are thinking a bit short here. A mindset can be developed but not
trained in a seminar. It needs a suitable environment and framework as well as
psychological maturity. The two are interrelated. Also, those who think that if
someone acts according to agile principles, he/she would automatically be able to
adapt his/her thinking to the action are mistaken in one important point. One can
propagate values without having internalized them. And one can follow rules with-
out inhaling their deeper meaning. One can do something, repeat something, and
still not live.
The fact that no one has taken on the topic of mindset and that I could thus fill
a gap in the market motivated me to write the book, especially since I can also take
different perspectives due to my different experiences. I am an entrepreneur, and I
think in business terms; I come from and work with commercial enterprises and
have an eye for organizational requirements. And I think in a certain way, being
aware of new insights and people but also the utility of something. So I do not think
there are many people who could write a book that way.
In the end, though, I do not write for narrow views, but because I care about
something and want to make a difference, to achieve a “shift” in thinking, and that
would be my wish. It is important to me to make the logic of thinking and acting
comprehensible. The mindset of organizations and people also shapes our society.
A mindset that can calmly integrate different perspectives creates a good future for
us. It brings about ethical action. As you can see: Mindset refers to the individual,
but also to the community. It is my logic of thought and action, but also that of an
organization, and even that of a society.
I understand mindset as the logical grid with which people and communities
absorb and sort information, but also with which they produce actions. An agile
mindset is flexible and capable of updating itself at any time, if better information,
new experiences, and different experiences make this necessary. The more agile a
person’s mindset, the more effectively they can act in different situations.
This is important for companies in transformation processes. Leadership in
change situations needs people with a flexible mindset. Unfortunately, however,
these positions are often occupied by people who do not have this. This is shown,
among other things, by a study of around 230 managers on “leadership values in
agile times,” which we are publishing for the first time in this book.
Why do we need a different mindset in digitalization than in the industrial age?
In the past, managers delegated tasks to individuals, today they delegate
viii Preface
r esponsibility to self-organized teams. Learning organizations not only need lead-

ers who are reflective but also as many people as possible who can work reflec-
tively.
In this book, I present five different mindsets that result from approaches of
developmental psychology. In purely statistical terms, barely 44% of all employees
currently have the prerequisites to work in a self-organized manner. So most of
them would have to be developed. In this book, you will get help for this develop-
ment.
You will receive questionnaires, checklists, and food for thought as well as case
studies. In my interviews, you will meet people with a certain mindset – even those
who don’t think much of agile methods. I would like to thank the book author Anne
Schüller, the lawyer Britta Redmann, the blogger and Otto employee Conny Deth-
loff, and the entrepreneur Martin Hoffmann for their contributions.
Best regards and have fun discovering!
Hamburg, Germany Svenja Hofert

www.teamworks-gmbh.de
www.svenja-hofert.de
Contents
1
Why Digitalization Demands a Transformation of Thinking�� 1
1.1 Mindset of Individuals and Organisations�� 3
1.2 Mindset and First- and Second-Order Change�� 7
1.2.1 New Work and Mindset�� 11
1.3 Mindset and Attitude�� 13
1.3.1 Basic Assumptions as the Basis for Everything�� 16
1.3.2 Basic Assumptions for Agility�� 18
1.4 Agile and Dynamic Versus Rigid and Fixed Mindset�� 19
1.5 The Structure of Thinking�� 22
1.5.1 Understanding Is an Illusion �� 23
1.6 Interview with Conny Dethloff�� 25
Referecnes �� 27
2
Basics of Developmental Psychology and Its Significance
for the Mindset�� 29
2.1 Stages of Moral Development�� 32
2.2 The Subject-Object Theory of Robert Kegan�� 33
2.2.1 Self-Updating: Digression on Abraham Maslow�� 36
2.3 Stages of Ego Development �� 38
2.3.1 The Pre-Conventional Level�� 42
2.3.2 The Conventional Level�� 44
2.3.3 The Post-Conventional Level�� 46
2.3.4 Ego-Development as Second Intelligence�� 47
2.3.5 Ego-Development and the Challenges of
Transformation Processes�� 51
ix
x Contents
2.3.6 Requirements for Mindset from the Perspective of

Change Management�� 54
2.3.7 Requirements for Mindset from the Point of View
of Self-Organization�� 55
2.3.8 Assessing Ego-Development�� 57
2.3.9 Are “Later” Developed Ones Better?�� 60
2.3.10 My Model of “Mode”�� 61
2.3.11 Detailed Description of the Stages�� 62
2.3.12 Development Interview �� 74
2.3.13 Interventions for Different Stages of Development�� 76
2.4 Spiral Dynamics �� 82
2.5 Development-Related Management Interview�� 84
References �� 86
3
How Leadership Leads to New Thinking�� 89
3.1 What Is Leadership?�� 91
3.1.1 Mindset and Organization �� 94
3.1.2 Systemic Theory-Theoretical View �� 97
3.1.3 What Makes Systemicists Tick?��101
3.2 Changed Management Principles in Digitalisation��103
3.3 Changing Competences in Digitisation��104
3.3.1 T-Shape for Agile Working��107
3.4 Four Management Directions��109
3.4.1 Mindset for Leadership from the Side��109
3.4.2 Mindset for Leadership from Above ��111
3.4.3 Mindset for Leadership from Below ��113
3.4.4 Mindset for Self-Leadership ��115
3.4.5 Self-Organisation��119
3.4.6 Our Leadership Values Study��120
3.4.7 Interview with Anne M. Schüller��131
References ��132
4
Mind-Change: Changing the Way We Think and Act��135
4.1 The Organization as a Mind Changer��137
4.1.1 Defining Common Understanding��139
4.1.2 Feedback as a Central Building Block for Everything��140
4.1.3 Determining Location with the Polarities of Belief��144
4.1.4 Recognizing Communication Architecture ��148
Contents xi
4.1.5 Determining the Agile Maturity Level��149

4.1.6 Designing Processes��165
4.1.7 Start Change with Metacommunication
About Change��169
4.1.8 Motivating People to Think in New Ways��173
4.1.9 Training People to Think in New Ways��176
4.2 An Exemplary Individual Change Concept ��176
4.2.1 Establishing Basic Assumptions ��177
4.2.2 Formulating One’s Own Epistemology��177
4.2.3 Developing an Attitude��179
4.2.4 Updating Knowledge��179
4.2.5 Feedback and Reflection ��181
4.2.6 Coaching Never Alone Again��182
4.3 Learning Dialectical Logic��183
4.3.1 The Different Understandings of Dialectics��184
4.3.2 Opposites Attract Each Other��185
4.3.3 Dialectical Practice��189
4.3.4 Influencing Thinking Through Language��190
4.3.5 Changing Thinking by Extending the Schema��192
4.3.6 Play!��193
5
Case Studies for Agile Working and Thinking��197
5.1 The Group: Otto GmbH & Co KG��197
5.1.1 Agile Cultural Change��198
5.1.2 Mindset of the Managers��199
5.2 ISEKI-Maschinen GmbH��201
5.2.1 Organization��202
5.2.3 Mindset��203
5.2.4 Interview with Martin Hoffmann��204
5.3 Sipgate GmbH��206
5.3.2 Mindset��207
5.4 City of Ängelholm��208
5.4.2 Agile Mindset��209
xii Contents
5.5 Exercises��210
5.5.1 Exercise Case 1: The Value-Oriented Craft Enterprise ��211
5.5.2 Exercise Case 2: The Traditional Shipping Group��213
5.5.3 Exercise Case 3: The Idealistic Start-Up��214
6 Better Places for All of Us ��217
Index��219
List of Figures
Fig. 1.1 Elements leading to posture. (Svenja Hofert)��17

Fig. 1.2 Information and transformation. (Svenja Hofert)��24
Fig. 2.1 Building blocks of personality ��39
Fig. 2.2 The poles of ego development. (Svenja Hofert)��41
Fig. 2.3 Ego modes��61
Fig. 3.1 T-Shaping makes skills for agile working visible��107
Fig. 3.2 Self-leadership development model ��116
Fig. 3.3 Framework conditions for self-organisation��118
Fig. 3.4 Distribution of management responsibility��123
Fig. 3.5 Values based on opposites��125
Fig. 3.6 Entrepreneur profile ��128
Fig. 3.7 Profile lateral guide��128
Fig. 4.1 Feedback levels��142
Fig. 4.2 Good feedback improves impulse control and increases
reflection��143
Fig. 4.3 Maturity grid��151
Fig. 4.4 Maturity grid with example marker ��154
Fig. 4.5 Example of a paradox in an organizational analysis��157
Fig. 4.6 Tetralemma��162
Fig. 4.7 Herzberg’s factors By Grap - Grap, CC BY-SA 3.0,
https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2724.298��163
Fig. 5.1 Analysis quadrants ��210
xiii
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Evaluation Agile Future Check��9

Table 1.2 Examples of values, basic assumptions and principles��19
Table 2.1 The thoughts of Robert Kegan ��36
Table 2.2 Ego-development in the overview��50
Table 2.3 Ego-development according to four characteristics ��65
Table 2.4 Analysis sheet for a conversation��77
Table 2.5 Example 1 for the analysis of a conversation��77
Table 2.6 Example 2 for the analysis of a conversation��78
Table 2.7 Tools and methods for different development phases��80
Table 3.1 Basic assumptions for leadership ��104
Table 3.2 Requirements due to digitization compared to industrialization��105
Table 3.3 Mean values��126
Table 4.1 Important dialectical approaches��186
xv
Why Digitalization Demands
a Transformation of Thinking 1
Not so long ago, employees didn’t always have to think on every job. People
took on tasks and did them. Bosses delegated and people worked primarily
to earn money. That still exists, but in parallel, a new world is emerging that
is influencing and in some ways “shaming” the old one because it seems to
be the better one. In this world, employees think for themselves, act at eye
level with managers, work in teams - no longer just for money, but for a
meaningful professional life. They take responsibility, resolve their own con-
flicts and continue to develop. With these changes, the logic of thinking and
acting, that is the mindset, must also change. After all, a person who takes
responsibility, has his own ideas and works for meaning thinks very differ-
ently from someone who completes tasks and does his duty. Quite a few
people find this transformation process overwhelming. This chapter ad-
dresses the changes in the modern workplace. What do they mean for a nec-
essary change in thinking?
“Thou shalt leave the thinking to the horses, for they have the bigger heads.” I
remember this quote of unknown origin well from my childhood. It’s supposed to
express that you just do your chores and don’t question them further. It wasn’t that
long ago that this was the attitude of the average worker and even many omit-level
managers. Why should I bother if it’s not going to do any good anyway? If our in-
novative spirit, our mental agility, our creative non-conformity and childlike play-
fulness are simply punished and certainly not encouraged by educational institu-
tions and the workplace?
© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 1

S. Hofert, The Agile Mindset, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34910-3_1
2 1 Why Digitalization Demands a Transformation of Thinking
And now all that is supposed to change, but we are still at the very beginning.
Almost everywhere there is talk of cultural change. This is meant more or less seri-
ously. Our experience from consulting is that people often first try to do a little
“value-washing” before more fundamental considerations are made. One “intro-
duces” agile values or tries a little Scrum or Kanban. Not infrequently, only to find
that all of this doesn’t really dock yet. What do you do with department managers
who are now supposed to work according to Scrum? Train them as Scrum Masters?
Some do that. And let the new Scrum Master also be a Product Owner. This is
where agile starts squaring the circle. Setting the product line and coaching the
team to remove obstacles? With disciplinary authority? (In)possible?
In many organizations, people think new thinking can be poured out on execu-
tives just because the board has proclaimed “We want to become more agile.” This
variant also produces masses of excessive demands.
Everywhere, people are trying to make changes with existing staff, existing
structure, and most importantly, existing thinking. This is the focus of this book:
thinking. Thinking is following emotions. It produces action or non-action - that’s
why thinking and action belong together for me like hand and foot. One can also
act without thinking. And think without acting. But no one can produce new action
without a new thought.
The fact that the shift towards more agility in management and teamwork is
sometimes approached naively is not unusual for the early stages of anything new.
Experience shows that in all topics where it is a matter of introducing something,
the first start is often unprofessional - whether it is social accountability or social
media strategies. In the agile context, this often looks like trainers “teaching”
something rather than getting it across. And they do so with a logic of thinking
that’s way too far removed from what’s relevant on the ground. People like to bring
in people from the agile software development environment and want to learn from
them - without seeing that there are significant differences between accounting,
bicycle production and software development.
This is rarely done from the top, but the initiatives come from HR departments.
What is overlooked is that agile methods cannot simply be rolled out if the required
thinking is not there. In the past few years, we have seen quite a few companies that
have decidedly turned back due to excessive demands on their employees. Agile
methods sometimes exacerbate existing paradoxes or introduce new ones. This is
inevitable, but requires metacommunication. That is, paradoxes should be com-
municated, at the level of the entire company and teams. In any case, this would
correspond to an organizational mindset that places development at the center.
In the best case, after the first attempt, the thinking is completely new. In the
best case, those responsible and all those involved have then understood that agility
1.1 Mindset of Individuals and Organisations 3
cannot be introduced, but is a work in progress and a constant topic. In the best
case, they have then understood that people must not only learn how to behave ac-
cording to rules like Scrum, but must “produce” behavior themselves in order to be
truly innovative. I would like to use an image from Nobel Laureate Daniel
Kahneman [1] here. His system 1 and system 2 are very helpful in understanding
this situation.
According to this, system 1 is quick thinking. This includes gut feelings and a
certain form of (deceptive) intuition, socially formed beliefs and other irrational
convictions, as well as other shortcuts of thinking that save brain capacity. The self-
affirmation tendency, a common “bias,” also falls into this. This leads to automated
scripts within us looking for a “return” on our assumptions. If you introduce agility
with system 1, you press Return without new input. System 2, according to
Kahneman, is slow thinking. This is healthy intuition (born of experience), think-
ing deeply in search of a real solution that disproves one’s assumption. A mindset
suitable for agile companies looks for slow thinking, knowing that it has to be well
trained, made flesh, so that it can hand over to system 1.
1.1 Mindset of Individuals and Organisations
Mindset contains two English terms: mind and set. I approach the term from
a psychological and philosophical perspective and then form my own idea of
mindset and mindsets. Mindset describes the way people think and act.
However, I would like to expand the term: it is not only individual thinking,
but also the logic of thought and action that companies use to shape the
thinking of their employees and their interactions.
There is no right or wrong mindset, only one that is appropriate or less
appropriate to the context and situation. The most important prerequisite for
an agile mindset is attitude on a personal level and a vision on an organiza-
tional level. Both give the mindset something like a backbone - it straightens
things up. The mindset of companies as well as people must be based on
basic assumptions, that is on an understanding of the “good”. In the agile
context, these basic assumptions are due to the demands of digitalization. In
this chapter, I would like to approach the term mindset, familiarize you with
the result, make the connection to attitude, and formulate a definition of the
agile mindset.
Do you have the right mindset? Does your organization match your mindset? I ask
you for a little patience for the concrete answer. The term “mindset” is not easily
explained. It is, after all, an abstract term, unlike the very concrete “brain” or
“spine.” Somehow, though, it has to do with both. And that’s why the concrete
terms can also make the abstract one more tangible.
Mindset is often used in connection with a desired or undesired way of thinking.
Then one says, for example “Mr. Müller has the right mindset” or “Mr. Meyer does
not have the right mindset”. This then means that Mr. Müller’s way of thinking fits
or does not fit for a certain challenge if he (allegedly) does not have the right mind-
set. For example, for the challenge of “agile working”. But what exactly is meant
by this term? Like all abstract terms, mindset needs to be defined, and any defini-
tion needs to leave room for manoeuvre.
The dictionary translates mindset simply as way of thinking or mentality -
which shortens the English meaning I mentioned earlier. My gaze falls on
Wikipedia, from which I quote here:
In decision theory and general systems theory, a mindset is a set of assumptions,

methods, or notations held by one or more people or groups of people that is so estab-
lished that it creates a powerful incentive within these people or groups to continue to
adopt or accept prior behaviors, choices, or tools [2].
Thus, an assortment of assumptions, procedures, and signs held by a person or

group of persons. In the further course, the entry refers to the decision and system
theory. That is, mindset establishes what decision-making premises a person or
group has. These are determined by the rules that apply within a system. When it
comes to decision theory, the author will certainly have had descriptive decision
theory in mind. Its concern is to investigate empirically how decisions are actually
made. The basis on which a person makes decisions naturally says a great deal
about his mindset.For me, however, this is still too little, and above all too little
tangible. Therefore, a short excursion into philosophy, which can help you sharpen
concepts logically like no other discipline.
First of all, one could separate abstract and concrete terms. Concrete is every-
thing that can be grasped and looked at and can be interpreted more or less simi-
larly by all observers. In this sense, the term bread is concrete, mindset abstract.
Absolute and relative terms could also be distinguished. Absolute are directions
like north, south, west, east. Relative are left and right. Mindset is relative. But this
distinction does not help us to focus on what we mean.
Plato brings the “idea” into play. The idea of something is what is to be fath-
omed. Every human being has his own idea of something that exists. It does not
1.1 Mindset of Individuals and Organisations 5
matter what it is, whether it is a concrete or abstract concept, absolute or relative.

The point is to find out in what the idea differs, what constitutes it, what is its na-
ture. So what is the idea of mindset?
This brings us closer to the mindset. I define it against the background of my
knowledge with my own way of thinking. The mindset in this book is therefore my
idea of something that I base on the ideas of others, but also distinguish from them.
Immanuel Kant tried to distinguish between ideas and concepts. There are con-
cepts of experience, of understanding and of reason. For him, ideas sprang from
sensuality alone and concepts from the mind alone. For John Locke, words are
sensual signs of a person’s ideas, concepts are ideas of the mind.
With this, we are slowly getting closer to the matter. I need to get to the bottom
of the idea of our mindset, to make the idea of it tangible. So that you also have an
idea - and you and I know that we never speak of the same thing, but of related
things. So that we attain a similar understanding.
cc Mindset has something to do with “mind” and with “attitude”

through the two components “mind” and “set”. So it is something
like the attitude of the mind. In what does an attitude show itself? In
feeling, thinking and acting - and in deciding to take something in
or not, to do, not to do, to say, not to say. Neurobiologically, no
thought is conceivable without emotion, so I will summarize feeling
and thinking below. The attitude of thinking is something like the
logic of the mind, if one understands logic as something on the ba-
sis of which decisions are made.
So we can deduce that logic, which triggers actions, is an essential part of the
mindset. That thought and action are therefore linked, even if they are not synchro-
nous, that is, if a person does only part of what he thinks, or does not act at all. This
non-action also arises from the inner logic.
How Thinking Determines Action

Example: Mr. Müller has a conflict with his boss. His logic tells him that it’s not
his place to “get upset”, so he suppresses anger and resentment and swallows.
What he thinks and feels determines his actions or inactions.
Systems theory includes, among other things, the idea that a system does every-
thing for its self-preservation and that the environment therefore determines think-
ing and acting. For this reason, the following thought is also relevant for us here:
Mindset is shaped by its environment. It cannot be seen in isolation. That is why we

say that Mr. Meyer fits with his mindset - and Mr. Müller does not. In a different
environment, it could be exactly the opposite.
Mr. Müller could modify his logic after a change of company and rebel after all.
Perhaps it is enough for him to develop the feeling that rebellion is desired and
positively valued. So a person’s mindset is not something fixed and static. The so-
cial system, the culture of a company, influences his mindset quite considerably.
Therefore, a company itself also has a mindset in the sense of “attitude of think-
ing and feeling” as a prerequisite for acting or not acting. This reflects the corporate
culture and the way of collective thinking and action logic.
Wrong Mindset for the Context

In a conservative company in the logistics industry, let’s call it Logos, managers
are promoted who show dominance behavior. The more assertive someone is,
the more likely they are to advance. In the process, a culture of not involving
employees prevails, which is interpreted as a strategy. Collaboration is not en-
couraged; rather, the cult of the individual prevails. Michaela stands out in this
environment with an inclusive style. She wants to coordinate and bring others
along. In this company, Michaela has no chance to get ahead, she is said to have
the wrong mindset. When she moves to another context, however, she realizes
that this is exactly the way she is well received. She now has the right “mind-
set”.
The corporate mindset shapes like the family. I am convinced of this and
have experienced it myself time and again: the longer someone is in a certain
environment and is exposed to its “corporate mindset”, the more it rubs off.
There is a person-environment interaction. It’s very likely that people who fit
the mindset are more likely to stay, while others apply away - those who can’t
socialize here.
How do you think? What do you infer from the way you think, the way you act?
I mean by “derive action.” What actions and non-actions does this thinking lead
you to? What do you do based on your thinking? Imagine you are a CEO in a new
company. What do you think about this job and what do you derive from it?
Do you want to do everything right? Do you want to be successful? Do you
primarily want to add value to the company, to turn something around? If the latter
is true, you will probably behave differently than if the former is true. Those who
want to do everything right will probably want to give their expert input first. Those
who want to succeed will likely seek goals first. Those who want to add value will
do one thing first: ask a lot of questions. You see: Thinking and acting go together.
1.2 Mindset and First- and Second-Order Change 7
The way of thinking and acting forms clusters of probable behavior. The person
who asks and explores a lot first is also more likely to be able to build relationships
and endure uncertainty in the face of ambiguity. He will be more likely to listen and
more open to criticism. The way of thinking and acting is therefore not only indi-
vidual, but can also be typologized.
Now the next question: Is the way you think and derive action from it suitable
for your task, in the agile context, in the culture change or wherever? Does it also
apply to your employees? Now please don’t say “but of course”. Most of us will
feel the tendency to think ourselves fit or not fit (if unsure). Most of us doubt or
don’t doubt. But few of us wonder which way it actually takes. Few are aware of
how different those ways can be. And that they can be changed. For this, one basic
prerequisite is needed: the willingness to self-reflect.
I often deal with clients - often managers - who are not sure whether they are
ready for a task. It is not uncommon for these people to be particularly reflective
and therefore well suited for development. Openly expressed and healthy self-
doubt characterizes people who are agile and developing. This is quite different
from covert and hidden self-doubt. This either makes people incapable of action
and rigid. Or it leads to actions that are learned but not questioned. One does not
want to be exposed as a doubter.
cc If we put all the ways of looking at things together, the mindset is

the changeable thinking logic of a person, which triggers his action
or non-action and is co-determined by his environment. It is the set
of the mind that leads to (not) taking something in a certain way,
seeing it, hearing it, understanding it, feeling it, analyzing it, inter-
preting it, communicating it - and deriving (non-)action from it.
1.2 Mindset and First- and Second-Order Change
All companies are currently facing a change that raises many questions. Everyone
knows that digitalization has an impact on corporate management. If there are two
poles, one called “preserve” and the other “change”, more and more companies
have to move to the pole of change. This is not for fun: the markets demand it.
Traditional companies are threatened by internet companies and start-ups. Among
the world’s most valuable ten companies, 80% were founded only in the last
20 years. The wheel is turning faster and faster, and those who don’t keep up and
sleep through change are disappearing. First- or second-order change threatens
everyone. First order means that a product threatens to disappear from the market
altogether, second order means that products can be digitized and should therefore
be changed. Companies are not always able to clearly state whether they are af-
fected by a first- or second-order change. Or would you have thought that a grill
brush could become completely obsolete because cleaning the grill is automatic?
Would bakers have dreamed 15 years ago that they would no longer bake their own
bread? Or would car mechanics have believed 20 years ago that they would find
themselves as software specialists?
No, it is not quite easy to assign oneself to first- or second-order change - and
even those who try will not be on the safe side in doing so. That is why all compa-
nies need to be on their guard, mobile, agile. In this section, I’d like to share with
you a reflection guide that will help you assess where you are in the change pro-
cess. The questions are also good reflection questions for mindset. That is, if you
really take them seriously and think them through, you might come up with new
ideas ... The depth of reflection increases when you think openly together with dif-
ferent people! Maybe with the whole company? And with external guests as well?
With our “Agile Future Check“, you take a closer look at first- and second-order
change:
1. Can your product or service be digitized? Give yourself points from 0 to 10. If
you give yourself 0 points, it means not at all - and 10 means completely.
(a) If you answered “no” to that question, now find five arguments that you’re
wrong. If you can’t think of anything, ask five industry insiders and five
industry outsiders how they see it. If this has made you think and you revise
your assessment, change your score accordingly.
2. Is it possible that people will no longer need your product or service in the next
10 years? Give yourself 10 points if you wholeheartedly say “yes”; if you say
“no”, give yourself 0 points. Vary the score depending on how much or how
little you agree.
(a) If you answered “no” to this question, please now actively look for at least
three pieces of evidence to the contrary that you are wrong. If you can’t
name them right away, ask five industry experts and five industry outsiders.
If this has made you think and you revise your assessment, change your
score upwards accordingly.
(b) If you answered “yes” to this question: What time horizon do you antici-
pate? When will customers no longer need your product? Give yourself 2
points for more than 20 years, 3 points for more than 10 years, 4 points for
more than 5 years and 5 points for less than 5 years.
(c) Could it also be a shorter time horizon? What are you basing your time es-
timate on right now? Are you really informed? Do you know what is and
will be technically possible? If you don’t know, get informed. Correct your
score if necessary.
3. How likely is it that an invention will make your product obsolete in the next
10 years? Give yourself 5 points for very likely, 4 points for likely, 3 points for
so-so, 2 points for unlikely and 1 for very unlikely.
(a) If you gave yourself less than 3 points, I remind you here of Kaiser Wilhelm,
who was convinced that the car could never outrun the horse. Nor did many
believe in the internet for all or that artificial intelligence could one day
learn for itself. Correct your value and remember: you are subject to the
self-affirmation tendency, see system 1. We believe what we want to be-
lieve. And seek out evidence to support it.
4. How likely is it that you will not be able to run the business in its current form
in the next 10 years because you will run out of skilled workers? Give yourself
1 point for completely unlikely and 5 points for very likely, for likely 4 points,
for partly, partly 3 points and unlikely 2 points.
(a) Think again about the demographic development. Include in your thoughts
that young people are looking for meaning in work and possibly a general
basic income could soon ensure that certain poorly paid and meaningless
functions are difficult to fill. Adjust the score accordingly.
And now transfer everything into Table 1.1.

Please note that this is not an empirical test and what I call below are only em-
pirical values. They are also just points given by you, which do not reflect any truth.
Table 1.1 Evaluation Agile Future Check

Question 1: Question 2: Question 3: Question 4:
digitisation product invention staff
Points step 1
(max. 30)
Points step 2
(max. 30)
Final score (step
1 and 2)
It is absolutely possible that you are completely wrong - and probably this is espe-
cially true if you have given rather few points.
• 20–30 points: You are extremely threatened, a first-order change could be im-
minent. This means you need to make your company radically agile. Innovation
is the number one focus topic and a complete rebuild is probably necessary.
• 10–19 points: You are threatened by change that could become change of the
first order before you know it. You should also focus on innovation, but you can
still proceed rather gradually.
• Under 9 points: High time to start slowly preparing for change, you’ve probably
already done some. But remember: a lot has changed faster than any of us
thought it would. No one is really safe. And even the most accomplished
Stanford graduate can’t plan for 10 years down the road.
Changes in the workplace affect us all. They require a new agility, because rigid
structures prevent and hinder innovation. I have often seen how extremely creative
self-organized teams can be when tasked with developing something new. This
creativity and speed would never be unleashed if coordination and approval pro-
cesses nipped such projects in the bud. They need an appropriate environment.
Creativity does not happen by fiat.
cc If you are threatened by change, you need a logic of thinking and

acting that enables and promotes innovation and self-organization.
To do this, you should look at your structures and your manage-
ment personnel. In other words, those who particularly shape the
company with their thinking. In owner-managed companies, it is
primarily the owner whose mindset sets the direction. This can also
be limiting. One option is to offer more freedom or to spin off teams
and parts of the company. Don’t expect later onboarding, that rarely
succeeds. Rather, provide interfaces to be able to use the resulting
innovations.
This is also a solution for organizations, especially since reintegra-
tion is even more difficult here. The mindset of the company is just as
formative here, but less determined by a personality (often endowed
with extreme characteristics). But this also creates something like a
basic organizational logic that everyone follows more or less consis-
tently. This logic almost always inhibits innovation in some way, be-
cause it is based on past experience. However, innovations do not

arise from yesterday’s experiences. You can only counter this by cre-
ating something entirely new, while gradually and slowly changing
the organization so that it can interface with and support the new,
rather than hinder it. That alone is challenging enough.
1.2.1 New Work and Mindset
I will only make a short excursion to the so-called “New Work”. The term goes
back to Frithjof Bergmann [3]. For him, work means developing one’s own creativ-
ity and personality - and thus also freeing oneself from wage labour. Values are
independence, freedom and community. Ultimately, Bergmann also outlines a
counter-model to capitalism. None of his works, however, gained attention beyond
a very small core group. It was only the current movement in the world of work that
made him known.
New Work means that the above values are released in the work and for every
person and employee. This fits well with the agile understanding of an open and
transparent communication culture.
In the end, however, New Work remains a rather philosophical consideration of
the human being and of a meaningful life. The fundamental criticism of capitalism
is justified against the background that digitalisation creates a whole series of pre-
carious existences and ensures more rather than less injustice, for example in rela-
tion to salaries. It clearly favours people with a very high level of education and
thus points quite clearly to the widespread educational injustice if we do not
quickly develop new models to counteract this [4].
New Work has to do with mindset insofar as it brings new ideas of work, and
how it should be, into consciousness. In my opinion, however, it does not funda-
mentally change the way we think and act. Rather, it creates an idea that we should
incorporate into our thoughts.
1.2.1.1 Interview with Britta Redmann

Britta Redmann is a German lawyer, business developer and author. Since 1996, she
has worked as a management expert in a wide range of industries (metal industry,
banking and services, IT). Her focus is on comprehensive, individually tailored em-
ployment law solutions for companies that already practice agility and New Work -
also in distinction to Taylorism 2.0, in which the human being becomes an effi-
ciency worker under the “agile cloak”.
What is your understanding of agility?

Redmann: As I understand it, agility is the ability of a company or organization to
perceive changes in its environment, to adapt quickly and flexibly to these changes,
to recognize opportunities, potential and also risks, and to continually align its own
actions with them. An essential aspect of this is to constantly learn from one’s own
experiences and to act in a future-oriented manner.
Based on this, people who think and act accordingly in an agile environment
are needed to shape and support this as well. For me, this means that both com-
panies and employees must have agility competence. Agility competence is char-
acterized by the ability to perceive changes, to assess them, to generate ideas
from them and to derive actions. In short, it is about sensitivity in the sense of
perceiving, recognizing, feeling, being attentive, that is having “antennae for
what is happening and emerging in my external and internal environment”. It is
about the willingness to change, to be curious about the new, to discover new
ways and alternative solutions in the first place. It is about courage to bring in
these ideas and to be able to inspire others for them, that is to awaken willingness
to participate. And finally, it is about reflection, namely about looking at my ac-
tions again and again from a meta-perspective and asking myself the following
questions: What did I learn from this? What would I do differently now with the
knowledge I have today? What went well? What needs to be improved? What
held me back? What has supported?
What kind of mindset does agility need?

Redmann: I recognize an agile mindset in a company when all - really all - struc-
tures and processes are designed to enable sensitive, change-ready and reflective
action. This requires a commitment that is constantly being sought, as well as a
culture of feedback, learning and trust. Innovations must be demanded and encour-
aged, responsibilities must be clear, decision-making processes must be kept short,
the customer must be involved, and success - but also failure - must be directly
perceptible to everyone. It is important that the company constantly asks itself
whether the structures and processes, the culture and the actions of the individual
promote the desired agility or hinder it. It is therefore always about sensitivity,
change and reflection.
What is the problem from your experience?

Redmann: Not only, but also especially in the work context, we have forgotten, or
it was not necessarily encouraged everywhere, to think and act “courageously”.
Large organizations and companies in particular, such as corporations, are required
by their legal form and the associated conditions and preventive measures, for ex-
ample in the area of compliance, to meet certain legal requirements. In line with
1.3 Mindset and Attitude 13
these structures, many employees have worked in more security-oriented environ-

ments, where the primary concern was to do everything “right”. Here, the focus
was more on guidelines and fixed rules in order to avoid mistakes that could be
painful for the individual. Employees are therefore not used to making their own
autonomous decisions. And companies, of course, have not looked for this in the
selection and hiring process. In this respect, we now have a landscape in many
places in companies in which agility also causes many fears.
What opportunities and risks does New Work offer?

Redmann: Basically, New Work is no different than any other change: people have
to be won over and convinced. If New Work is understood to mean more employee
participation, more decision-making authority and more self-determined action,
this will require agile, networked organizations that provide precisely this space.
New Work needs a framework for action in which situational action is possible.
This means that I, as an employee, need room to maneuver without constantly hav-
ing to ask myself whether I am allowed to do this or not. Rigid, traditional corpo-
rate structures cannot really make New Work possible.
I am convinced that there are many employees who cope well with this new way
of working. These are usually the employees who can organize themselves well,
who want to work in a self-determined way, who know their goal and run, and
above all, they are employees who find it easy to communicate, and to communi-
cate successfully.
In the same way, there will be employees who say: I want to know exactly what
I am supposed to do. I don’t want to be involved at all and take on a lot of respon-
sibility. For me, this is therefore not a special issue of New Work, but something I
have with every type of change in the company. There are always employees for
whom the pace of change suits them, and still others for whom it doesn’t. And it
has nothing to do with age or belonging to a particular generation.
The trick is always to create success with the team that is there. This means that
companies are asked to use those who are not so New Work-savvy in such a way
that they too can act successfully.
1.3 Mindset and Attitude
I would now like to return from the organization to the level of the individual. The
company shapes the individual, but it can also be the other way around. The ques-
tion then is what exactly is responsible for this shaping. I mean, it’s the mindset -
especially in owner-managed companies, it affects the entire culture. Sometimes
mindset is also translated as attitude, but it is not the same thing.
Just as some equate mindset with attitude, they also project attitude close to
mindset. Now, if mindset were attitude and attitude were opinion (which is also
more often thought), mindset would also have to be opinion. This is not the case.
Of course they are independent terms. But they must first be defined so that they
can be distinguished.
Imagine a person with attitude. Who comes to mind? What makes this person
stand out? When I ask this question, I usually hear examples of people who ...
• have a high level of judgment,

• represent values,
• act ethically.
A Gandhi was someone with attitude. Martin Luther. Sheryl Sandberg. Maybe
Steve Jobs.
When it comes to politicians, most people can’t think of many. Barack Obama
would certainly be ascribed more of an attitude than Donald Trump, Bill Clinton
more than George W. Bush.
Why? In that case, it is the third point, the ethics that someone represents or
seems to represent. We see value orientation through an occidental veil still shaped
by the Enlightenment. There are values flashing through this veil that are desirable,
and these are based on socio-social interpretations.
Viewed through such glasses, we are always in danger of confusing attitude
with the value orientation of a particular social class. This creates blind spots for
everything that lies beyond their ideas of goodness: Achievement, diligence, con-
formity are still such socially entrenched values. But they do not reflect an attitude.
Those who align themselves with them are merely following convention.
Posture is more than a value orientation of this kind. What gives us posture
physically is the backbone. We straighten up, we walk upright. Posture needs back-
bone, something to align itself with and use to lift itself and others up. What an-
chors is not values, but principles lived. Values to me are hollow air until they are
underpinned by principle. I’ve known so many value-driven businesses that had no
principles, just as I’ve known value-driven people who aligned with nothing but
each other. And that is another point: it must be one’s own standard that gives atti-
tude, not the trained one.
A principle is also a decision premise: This is what I will orient myself to, align
myself with, uphold. It is the basis for action. It gives such a strong backbone that
a person is ready to give everything for it and even to put himself aside. It is there-
fore immensely important for the formation of opinion, but it is not opinion.
Opinions are another thing. There are opinions that are not one’s own, but are based
on group opinions. The basis is then not one’s own attitude. Opinion based on at-
titude comes from reflecting on one’s own and others’ perspectives and comparing
them to principles. One could call one a populist opinion and the other an attitude-
based opinion.
A principle that is based on a value as an impulse for action is not only a prem-
ise for decision-making, it must also refer to something that can exist separately
from oneself. Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperative“is still a good example of
principle formation today: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at
the same time will that it become a general law.” Of course, one can criticize this,
because there are indeed principles that cannot be generalized in this way. At the
latest when one deals with dilemmas, this becomes obvious. Currently there is an
ethical discussion about self-driving cars. What should such a car be programmed
to do in an accident situation: save the occupant or a child who threatens to run over
the car? To the rescue of two younger people on the right side of the road or three
older people on the left? That’s where Immanuel Kant gets you nowhere. And some
principles cannot be formulated in absolute terms, but must always be updated. For
that you need this thing called mindset.
The focus of a principle is on action, while the value provides a direction for
action. Only in the interplay of value and principle lies strength, only on this is at-
titude built. However, it is certain values and principles that constitute attitude.
Inhumanity, for example, is not an attitude, but inhumanity - an impulsive, uncon-
trolled behaviour. There can be no value and no principle for inhumanity.
Values must be directed to the immediate environment, to the community and to
humanity as a whole in order to constitute attitude. The wider the circle covered by
the principle, the more we can speak of attitude:
• I’m taking my cue from a group.

• I orient myself to the group and the context.
• I orient myself to the group, the context and the society.
Attitude needs to be checked by the pressure and headwind of other attitudes, opin-
ions or imprints. It only shows itself when it is not supported by others. Only those
who can maintain their own attitude in a group of people without or with a different
attitude have one. This is what distinguishes real attitude from lip service and pop-
ulist opinions. This does not mean that everyone with an attitude has to trumpet it
in every situation - even when his life is in danger and under threat of imprison-
ment - but that he checks situations for suitability to use his attitude for a turn for
the better.
That is why attitude gets another cornerstone here: the good. Whoever takes this
cornerstone seriously recognizes that the good cannot exist without evil and can
only exist in a demarcation from one another. The good can also only be defined by
individual attitude. Good has no fixed manifestation, it adapts to the situation that
shows us the difference between good and evil. The good subordinates itself to
what is recognized as the highest good. Is it aesthetics? The serenity? The good
life? The morally good? For Aristotle, it’s the blissful life. And with you? The high-
est good moderates our basic assumptions and determines the principles of our at-
titude. With the highest good, they change and take on a new form. So let’s start
with that.
1.3.1 Basic Assumptions as the Basis for Everything
Basic assumptions are interpretations of the world. They tell how something is and
what you believe in or not. There can be basic assumptions about the world, life
and people, about companies and economy. Even the “highest good“is based on
basic assumptions. Suppose the highest good is the happy life of all, then there
could be the following basic assumptions:
• Everyone can choose to make the most of their opportunities at any given time.
• The world is made up of opposites, which dissolve when they are recognized as
such.
• We can make the world a better place for everyone around the globe every day
through micro acts.
• Thinking as broadly and maturely as possible is desirable for all.
Basic assumptions are not truths, they are interpretations. But like any good analy-
sis, they are based on something that reflects the state of knowledge or else has
ignorance as a presupposition. There may be cultures, people and groups that do
not share basic assumptions such as “The broadest and most mature thinking pos-
sible is desirable for all” and can justify this.
Basic assumptions help in the formation of principles. What do I base them on?
A basic assumption cannot arise from the hollow of the belly. It needs a highest
good, and may also be underpinned by the state of knowledge of the time in which
someone developed this attitude. Let us take a happy life for all as the highest good.
To do this, we need to know what constitutes a happy life - and research provides
numerous insights in this regard.
Those who make their basic assumptions in this way can no longer allow sim-
plifications. “Everyone is good” is just as much a simplification as “Everyone is
bad” and is not based on a basic assumption in my sense. Basic assumptions mod-
erated by the highest good, which form the basis of principles and align with val-
ues, cannot be sweeping and generalizing.
A stable basic assumption therefore has a very essential quality: it can be up-
dated. It can stand an update, if you like. It can be concretized, if necessary limited
or relativized with the addition of another or expanded or changed principle. As a
source of attitude, a basic assumption can never be rigid.
The “highest good” guides people. But can it also guide companies? In my
opinion, yes, but it is a decision, a very fundamental one. Economic growth does
not have to contradict the basic assumption of the blissful human being, but it can,
if one thinks consistently. We cannot then produce anything that exploits people in
Africa or Asia or anywhere else in the world. That’s why companies should always
work on the highest good and their basic assumptions first. You can hide the highest
good because it makes things basic, simplifies what was previously complex. But
thought of consistently and holistically, it is part of it. It also creates meaning and
identification.
One could also call values, basic assumptions and principles the basic elements
of the attitude. The agile frameworks lack the basic assumptions. They presuppose
something without reflecting on it and re-evaluating it again and again. The authors
of the agile manifesto only wanted to offer a framework, everyone is responsible
for the content.
A reflection can be started on the individual as well as on the organizational
level with each of my elements - basic assumptions, needs and values, principles,
attitude, positions (see Fig. 1.1) - and will automatically come to the other topics
with the appropriate depth. However, it is recommended to start with basic
Fig. 1.1 Elements leading to posture. (Svenja Hofert)

a ssumptions and relate them to the “life elements” of meaning, cognition and the
good. What is meaning for us, how do we gain knowledge, what is the good? These
thoughts encourage further reflection on basic assumptions - what do we believe
about ourselves?
Depending on the maturity level of a company, however, this depth can be over-
whelming. In this case, one should start with the values and principles. Getting to
the bottom of the basic assumptions or thinking about them is more sustainable.
Basic assumptions shape the lived corporate culture, they shape the values - there
is an interaction. That is why they can be captured with structured interviews.
What applies to the organizational level also applies to the individual: If a per-
son wants to develop, for example towards becoming a leader suitable for the agile
context, he should reflect on his own basic assumptions. And I mean his own, be-
cause all too often people do not have their own basic assumptions, but rather adopt
the basic assumptions of others without reflection. Impossible to develop attitude
like that.
We need our own backbone! This enables us to contribute to grasping the basic
assumptions of the company with our own basic assumptions and to update them if
necessary. Or to see and communicate contradictions and paradoxes. Perhaps we
will then see: Yes, we pursue the basic assumption on the intellectual level that the
world consists of opposites - but we do not live it.
1.3.2 Basic Assumptions for Agility
What does attitude, which is derived from basic assumptions, have to do with agile
mindset? If I define mindset as a logic of thinking and acting, then this is initially
not filled with a specific content. It is a way of thinking and acting, but not a spe-
cific one. However, agile mindset is a particular logic of thought and action. It is
based on certain basic assumptions, more precisely the following:
• Digitalization demands agility from us.

• Agility means that everyone has to take responsibility.
• Small units are more agile than large ones.
• Without hierarchies, people and teams can be more efficient and innovative.
You can expand the list, which then resembles a check of the basic assumptions.
Writing these down once can be very enlightening. It may be that this is the first
time you notice that you are assuming something that is perhaps not proven at all
or could be different.
1.4 Agile and Dynamic Versus Rigid and Fixed Mindset 19
Table 1.2 Examples of values, basic assumptions and principles

Subject Basic assumption Value Principle
People People follow different Development We promote development
logics of thinking and
acting
Teams A heterogeneous team Diversity We promote diversity
can achieve much more
than the individual
Company Organizations must Profitability We are profit oriented
survive economically
Responsibility Organizations bear social Social We take care of
responsibility sustainability educationally
disadvantaged citizens in
the region
Human resources The logic of thought and Mobile We promote an agile
development action of individuals can thinking mindset
be changed
Team A team can achieve more Respect We develop teams
development than any individual if towards mutual trust
there is trust.
Basic assumptions are very suitable for an inventory. What do I believe in?
What do we believe in? Which values result from this? And what principles do we
follow because of them? If you put this in a table, as in Table 1.2, contradictions
often become visible. At the same time, very concrete principles and bases for
decision-making emerge.
Furthermore, it is possible to revise the basic assumptions, for example because
they no longer correspond to the current state of knowledge or do not match the
agility requirements. Then it is necessary to revise them.
1.4 Agile and Dynamic Versus Rigid and Fixed Mindset
A mindset should be able to update its basic assumptions. This means that the logic
of thought and action must be such that it considers change in itself and others to
be possible at all. This is not self-evident. And that is why I would like to introduce
a theory here that helps to keep in mind how a mindset must be set up so that it can
update itself.
Stanford professor Carol Dweck has dealt intensively with this basic mindset.
She distinguishes between the “fixed mindset” and the “growth mindset”, the
rigid and the agile mindset, the latter is also called incremental mindset.
Incremental mindset is known from software development. There it is a step-by-

step development. This is an important aspect for the growth mindset: It develops
as a biopsychosocial supersystem step by step - in a certain sequence of steps, as
we will see later. The mindset of Carol Dweck [5–7] is thus the basis for an agile
mindset in my sense - a self-renewing basic attitude that can meet the require-
ments of digitalization. And by that I mean much more than the demands of the
working world. If we think further, we can also think about the demands that a
changed working world places on us, for example through artificial intelligence
or other ways of life. What kind of mindset on an individual and societal level
does a comprehensive basic income need? For people to be able to take respon-
sibility for themselves, they need a high level of personal maturity. This is very
similar to the mindset for agility.
Carol Dweck’s [5] distinction is quite simple: the fixed mindset is an inner at-
titude that assumes that everyone is the way they are - in both a positive and nega-
tive sense. The growth mindset is quite different: it assumes constant development,
dynamism. Here, too, it is important to combine thinking and acting and not to
separate them. There are many who say that they believe in the evolvability of
themselves and others, but have not internalized this thinking. That is, they can
reproduce knowledge but not act on it.
Carol Dweck has achieved a lot in different target groups. For example, in ped-
agogy: she examined how children develop when they are “fixed” and when they
are “dynamically” educated. Children who are thought to have innate intelligence
do worse - they develop less. “Well done, you’re just smart” is not good parenting
advice. In contrast, “Very good, you’ve made real progress since the last time” is
just as developmentally beneficial as constructive feedback.
In a fixed mindset, students believe their basic abilities, their intelligence, their
talents, are just fixed traits. They have a certain amount and that’s that, and then
their goal becomes to look smart all the time and never look dumb. In a growth
mindset, students understand that their talents and abilities can be developed
through effort, good teaching and persistence. They don’t necessarily think every-
one’s the same or anyone can be Einstein, but they believe everyone can get smarter
if they work at it [5].
The results of Carol Dweck’s research can thus also be applied to adults, such as
managers. Only if they believe in the development of themselves and others will
they be able to promote it. This is an essential point if we decide to focus on devel-
opment and no longer see people as finished products bought in by companies.
Often the mindset is better to observe than to inquire about in this process. When
1.4 Agile and Dynamic Versus Rigid and Fixed Mindset 21
I ask executives or coaches if they believe in development, many say “yes.” But
when I observe them, I see that they don’t act on it. This means that the belief in the
growth mindset is socially desired, but often not internalized.
If the New Mindset Is Not Truly Embedded ..

A manager conducts a textbook feedback discussion. She attests to the em-
ployee’s good work. But then she says, “But that mistake didn’t have to be
there,” and refers to something that has no significance in the overall context
and for the future. Apparently, she is guided by the principle of always wanting
to pass on something that contains potential for improvement - actually not
wrong. It’s just that what the manager chooses has no meaning when it comes
to the employee’s development. It’s not embedded in a context, nor does it have
a positive development message. It shows that the manager has a lack of vision,
despite other professions, and that he or she is not thinking contextually.
So it would be better: The direction of development must be clear to both
interlocutors, for example, to make strategic decisions. Potential for improve-
ment must be within this framework. Feedback should be related to what has
been worked out together and what evaluation criteria have been set. Potential
for improvement should be addressed where a step forward has already been
taken, but where a further step would be helpful. The manager should praise the
step that has already been taken and whet the appetite for a further one. “You
can still do X if you pay more attention to using the data you have.”
So an agile mindset is definitely a dynamic mindset. You should let this sentence
roll off your tongue. It is not profane. I have seen a fixed mindset in many agile
teams. Agile methods were applied statically and there was no looking left and
right. Most importantly, without an agile mindset, these agiles did not believe in
dynamic development. Rather, they confused learning and development, more on
that later. They read a lot of books, but this only led to one thing: the formation of
fronts. In one company, half of the employees believed in teamwork and the other
half did not. This reflects a mindset of right and wrong. This is not dynamic. In
other words, not agile.
cc An agile mindset is a growth mindset. This includes the conviction

that everyone can develop at any time if they decide to do so. It also
means that nothing is set in stone, but everything is a work in prog-
ress - not only the project, but also one’s own mindset.
1.5 The Structure of Thinking
So far, I wanted to convey the following: A suitable mindset for the agile workplace
has basic assumptions, follows values, shows attitude and can also take a position
based on these. It can rethink and renew its basic assumptions when new informa-
tion comes along. This absolutely requires the belief in human evolvability. Thus,
this mindset is always growth-oriented, that is dynamic. The attitude is character-
ized, for example, by the fact that lifelong learning and personal development are
principles of action, the basic assumption being “those who develop can effectively
participate in shaping and changing”.
This fits with the tasks of an agile organization. I will explain these tasks again
later. But even without me going into detail, you will understand that they have to
do with change. What is clear, or should be: A company that changes needs people
who welcome change.
I now have to take another step back to explain how people absorb and perceive
things structurally, because that is the prerequisite for their action. There are ex-
perts who think that one learns by doing. Action can support - and learning through
practice is effective, but it doesn’t affect the logic of thought and action. Think of
this logic of thought and action as a vessel that has a certain shape and can only
hold what that shape dictates. It also adapts all new contents to this form. But if it
changes itself, that is its shape, then the way it takes in content - for example new
thoughts - also changes. Let us look into the brain. One such change is caused by
firing neurons, which initiate new connections in the brain and thus also change the
structure of the neural networks. This is different from making the old pathways
tighter and tighter.
We often assume that each of us can understand everything. And everyone hears
and sees the same thing. But that is not the case. Everyone sees and hears some-
thing different. If three people go to an event, one will notice the speaker’s beauti-
ful dress, the next will notice the delicious buffet, and the third will notice the stain
on the wall. It’s the same with content. While there are things that all people per-
ceive similarly, the details are highly different. This is even more true when it
comes to drawing one’s own conclusions from something, that is producing
thoughts without guidelines and deriving action from them.
1.5 The Structure of Thinking 23
1.5.1 Understanding Is an Illusion
We all see something different, that is normal. Whoever claims that “we understand
each other blindly” is a master of self-affirmation. No one understands each other
blindly unless it has been preceded by a very long period of living and experiencing
together. The more complex the person and situation, the less true this is. On a very
simple level, we really can understand each other blindly, without language. On a
complex one, much less so. And complexity is very clearly reflected in language.
We also all see something different, we understand different things. How we
sort content is also very different.
Take the retweets of my blog posts on Linkedin. Each retweeter pulls out a dif-
ferent aspect, unless it’s machine-generated. Summaries and Comments, too, al-
ways refer to other aspects, sometimes to those that I myself consider completely
unimportant. It is also not uncommon for the content not to be understood at all in
the way I meant it. That has to do with various things: with cognitive abilities, with
knowledge, but most of all with the different levels of perception.
Simple communication models such as the “four ears model“by the German
psychologist Friedemann Schulz von Thun show in simple language that there are
such different levels: the factual level of the content, the relationship level, the ap-
peal level with which we make non-verbal statements through the way we speak.
Self-disclosure is also not to be underestimated. Someone who is positively dis-
posed towards me will receive my texts differently from the outset than someone
who is looking for the salt in the soup.
People do not reduce information to its core, but to what fits the relationship, the
situation, the context, their own mindset. They select suitable information accord-
ing to their specific mindset and exclude others. Professional imprints play a role
here: journalists tend to select something that can form a striking counterpoint.
Scientists choose what serves progress or their own hypothesis. They want to look
good, to convince, to be recognized. Managers choose information based on per-
sonality, but also depending on their position in the company, their status and their
position. Owners usually have another view, partly determined by characteristics
typically distinguishable from employees. Owners tend to be more self-willed, one
could also say more independent, sometimes - if I may say so - more stubborn,
which can be a good thing, but also a hindrance. So there is a wide variety of im-
prints and influences. But what is selected and evaluated as information, or not,
also says something about the mindset, independent of these efforts.
What do we see? How do we organize information into the drawers of our

brain? What do we take in? What do we store? And how do we file it? With which
evaluations do we link it?
Like it or dislike it - ratings always have to do with emotions that are detached
from the actual content. They go back to experiences from childhood. There I no-
ticed, for example, that I could be undisturbed (joy!) when I expressed clever
thoughts. Or I felt that it was well received when I made my own point of view.
These evaluations are different for each individual. As life goes on, they change.
I reevaluate. Many of these reevaluations have to do with a personal maturation
process.
If criticism used to trigger shame, this usually disappears the more one finds
oneself. If a young person initially strives for recognition by others, this often dis-
appears as the ego strength increases. This all happens through experience, through
reflection - cognition. Not through training. Things can be rehearsed in training.
You can make people behave appropriately or follow certain communication pat-
terns. It has no influence on their mindset. I therefore distinguish learning and de-
velopment (see Fig. 1.2). Learning means that people acquire more knowledge.
Development means that they change their way of perceiving - their mindset. On
different levels. When we look at this below, I want to start with the forefather of
cognitive development, Jean Piaget. His great achievement is the discovery of the
regular sequence in development in childhood and adolescence. But regular devel-
opment does not stop in adolescence. This was later taken up by other researchers.
Fig. 1.2 Information and transformation. (Svenja Hofert)

1.6 Interview with Conny Dethloff 25
I would now like to devote a whole chapter to this topic, because I consider it to be
very central. Therefore, we have information on the one side and transformation on
the other. Information means learning more of the same. Transformation means
also changing the structure and form.
Mindset in an Agile Context

In this chapter, the focus was on the definition of the mindset. I described this as
the thinking and action logic of a person or biopsychosocial supersystem, but
also of an organization or social system. The agile mindset is therefore a mind-
set for an agile, changing environment. I defined the agile environment as rap-
idly changing and unpredictable under complexity. In an agile environment,
there are few fixed states, development is unpredictable. Whether agile methods
are used or not is not relevant in this context. You do not necessarily need certain
methods to be “agile”.
1.6 Interview with Conny Dethloff
Conny Dethloff is responsible for product and data management in the Business
Intelligence department at Otto GmbH & Co KG. He is also actively driving cul-
tural change at Otto.
From Your Point of View, What Shapes the Way People Think?
People’s thoughts and actions are primarily shaped by structures. By this I mean,
on the one hand, internal structures. These are the internal models that each person
possesses and through which each person interprets his perception of and his think-
ing about the environment. In other words, his mindset.
But structures also include the external ones. These are deliberately explicitly
formulated - that is formal - laws according to which a system, such as every com-
pany is, in which people act, functions. In the context of companies, these struc-
tures primarily answer the question of how people should think and act together.
These are therefore documented processes, organisational charts, rules, etc.
However, there are also informal rules that are not explicitly defined and de-
scribed, but which people in companies nevertheless follow. For example, in a
meeting room, a certain seat at the table is always reserved for the superior.
What Role Do Methods Play in This?

Methods, such as Kanban or Scrum, are always interpreted by external and internal
structures of people. If you want to understand the methods, you should think about
the structures, external and internal, on which the inventors of these methods were
based at the time of the development of these methods. Lean comes from the Asian
region. People there have different internal structures than people in the West.
Methods therefore only have a secondary influence on our thinking and our ac-
tions. Accordingly, it would also be fatal to try to shape change on the basis of
methods. Nevertheless, we do it again and again in the corporate context, even if
we perceive the failures.
Why Is That?
For this, we address the internal structures inherent in people, our mindset, which
is formed, among other things, by our thinking framework. It is not about what we
think, that is not about the content of our thinking. It is rather about how we think,
that is which patterns and paradigms underlie our thought processes in order to be
able to think content at all.
What paradigms, arising from Aristotle’s system of thought of two-valued logic,
which we trust, underlie our framework of thought?
1. We think in order to attain the ultimate truth.

2. We think analytically, breaking problems down into parts.
3. We think to establish objectivity.
4. We think in terms of either–or relationships.
5. We think within the framework of our two-valued logic.
6. We think in terms of relationships based on cause and effect.
I would like to go into point 4 in more detail, as it is already clear at this point how
our framework of thinking stands in the way of a necessary change. In “either–or”
thinking, contradiction has no chance. It is excluded. Contradiction cannot be rep-
resented formally-logically, so it is denied. We people in Western societies have
exactly this premise here. We can’t choose. And this is exactly the difference to the
frame of thinking of people in Asian societies, who can choose and where therefore
also a “both/and” exists.
Referecnes 27
Isn’t that Very Difficult for People to Bear?

However, liveliness and thus humanity are paradoxical. Does it mean, then, that we
exclude aliveness in our frame of thought? Yes, that is exactly what it means. Of
course, this is in a contrary relationship to the ideas behind agile, where it says,
among other things, “people before processes”.
Many initiatives for change in companies come to nothing because they do not
take contradictions into account. Change means breaking and following system
rules at the same time. Breaking because otherwise one would not talk about
change, and following because otherwise one would be flushed out of the system
as a disruptive factor.
What Is Really Essential?

Other actions should emerge within the framework of a change, because only they
make the difference. Actions arise to a large extent from underlying structures in
which people move. But you won’t change those structures unless people’s experi-
ences change, which in turn only result from changed actions. Do you recognize
the chicken and egg problem of change and thus the contradiction? Which came
first, the changed structures or the changed actions? Change is only about actions
taken against one’s experience. Paradox, isn’t it?
And that is exactly why change is so incredibly complex and cannot be man-
aged by methods. And it’s not enough to just say “It’s about mindset, we have to
change our mindset”. Why not? It does not guide action.
Referecnes
1. Kahneman, Daniel. 2016.Thinking fast and slow. London: Penguin.
2. Eintrag Mindset, englische Wikipedia. www.wikipedia.com. Zugegriffen: 30. Juli 2017.
3. Bergmann, Frithjof. 2004. Neue Arbeit, neue Kultur. Freiburg: Arbor.
4. Väth, Markus. 2016. Arbeit – Die schönste Nebensache der Welt. Offenbach: GABAL.
5. Dweck, Carol S. 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random
House.
6. Dweck, Carol S. 1999. Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and develop-
ment. Philadelphia: Psychology.
7. Dweck, Carol S. 2012. Mindset: How you can learn to fulfill your potential. London:
Constable & Robinson Limited.
Basics of Developmental Psychology
and Its Significance for the Mindset 2
People develop according to empirically proven patterns, even in adulthood.

The degree of maturity in developmental psychology determines which ac-
tion logic a person can develop. Some get stuck at a certain stage, others
develop further and further, especially if they want to do so themselves and
even more so if the environment encourages this development. People de-
velop according to empirically proven patterns, even in adulthood. The de-
gree of maturity in developmental psychology determines which action logic
a person can develop. Some get stuck at a certain stage, others develop fur-
ther and further, especially if they want to do so themselves and even more
so if the environment encourages this development. In this consideration,
different degrees of maturity result, which stand for different thinking and
action logics. Mindset in my understanding is thus also a question of devel-
opmental psychological maturity. A higher degree of maturity corresponds
to greater success in change situations. The agile mindset therefore needs a
higher degree of maturity in this developmental psychological sense. People
with higher maturity are able to support others in their development.
Companies could use this knowledge to fill positions more specifically and
to prepare their own personnel for the tasks of the future. In this chapter, I
introduce the models of Jean Piaget, Jane Loevinger and Robert Kegan and
present a pragmatic own model based on them. With this I want to make this
approach more tangible and easier to reach more people.

30 2 Basics of Developmental Psychology and Its Significance for the Mindset
If you have a pubescent teenager at home who thinks that everyone should look after
themselves first, sit back and relax. This is normal if we understand normality as a
statistical quantity – the majority of teenagers are like that. It is not quite normal,
however, if this also applies to a 60-year-old, because then he has stopped at a stage
of development that he shares with only a few. In this case, after puberty there has
been no development of thinking and action logic. There was only in-formation not
transformation. No matter how successful the person with this mindset is or was.
And success is anything but impossible: While some with an adolescent stage of
development end up in prisons, others build political and economic empires with
thislogic. However, if they want to implement a culture change and increase agility,
they will fail precisely because of this thinking, if their company has a strong power
base or if it is not integrated or committed enough consistently. Backroom actions
are always to be expected here: These people will not be able to think of the aspects
connected with this, and therefore will not be able to derive corresponding actions.
Jean Piaget has written texts that are difficult to understand, but he has made
very simple experiments, including the famous “Three Mountains Experiment”.
He placed small children in front of the model of a mountain. They took up three
different positions and thus always looked at the mountain from a different per-
spective. Then he placed a human figure made of plastic in front of one side of the
mountain, in a position where the children had been themselves before. The chil-
dren looked at the mountain from a different position. Now Jean Piaget wanted to
know from the children what the human figure sees on the other side. Children
aged about four or five years could not put themselves in the figure’s perspective,
even though they had previously looked out of the figure onto the mountain them-
selves. Or to put it another way: they could not perceive that someone saw some-
thing other than themselves.
Jean Piaget also discovered that small children are unable to recognize perspectives
relationships. They are not able to cope with two dimensions in the mind at the same
time, they lack the understanding of the constancy of quantity, therefore the experi-
ment is also called “constancy experiment”. So he took a broad and an elongated ves-
sel with water. The children could not believe that there was the same amount of water
in both vessels, even though Jean Piaget could prove it by spilling the water.
The concept of the scheme, along which development is shown, also goes back
to him. This scheme is becoming increasingly differentiated and adapts to new
findings. If everything with four legs is a dog for a small child, it soon learns that a
cow is also a four-legged animal and not a dog.
This development along schemata does not stop in adulthood. The more people
differentiate themselves and are active in the environments that promote this dif-
ferentiation of thought and action, the more small-scale and diverse their percep-
2 Basics of Developmental Psychology and Its Significance for the Mindset 31
tions become. This is particularly noticeable when dealing with complex issues.
There are always new aspects that one perceives. The assessment is also changing.
At the beginning I see myself first of all and orientate myself towards others, but
with increasing maturity I draw an ever larger radius around myself, the others, the
situation, the context, the social framework. With it I recognize shades that others
no longer perceive, my standards change. The ego becomes stronger, but at the
same time more insignificant. To the extent that this happens, I am able to give oth-
ers more space – real space in the sense of respectful freedom.
All this happens from a neurobiological point of view in the mind, through new
connections, more roads and side streets, more networking, fewer homemade stop
signs. In order for such connections to develop and strengthen, emotions are
needed, because only neurons that fire connect. Through intensive experience,
electrical signals are converted into chemical signals and the synaptic gap between
two neurons can be bridged. Intensive experience can contribute to this.
cc The basic assumption that behaviour shapes thinking is wrong. As long

as the behaviour is trained and not self-producing, this is not true. Be-
haviour may be accompanied by words and concepts that give the im-
pression that something has developed his thinking logic. At the latest
in critical situations, however, one will notice the difference between
trained and authentic behaviour coming from within.
We must be able to think something before we can act upon it. But
it may well be that we can think something without deriving action
from it. Action without thinking, however, is imitation or the working
off of checklists.
Organizations often focus on training the behaviour of people. They’re practic-

ing. This approach is based on a basic assumption that is not so simple: that
behaviour shapes thinking. That’s only partly true. Someone can learn some-
thing, like Scrum methods, but still not think certain things. Training and coach-
ing can be a lot of fun, but still only serve as self-affirmation. One solidifies the
existing connections in the brain, but does not create new ones. The basic logic
remains the same. But it could change – if people were challenged more. If you
put development first and not learning. In order to understand why this is so
important, I would like to present in the following chapters the developmental
psychological models of Jane Loevinger and Robert Kegan and the approaches
of David Rooke and William Torbert. They provide very concrete approaches on
how this can be done. If we assume that what makes an agile company is its
readiness for constant change and permanent learning, then it needs people who
are more mature than the majority of people. However, this maturity does not
grow on trees. We can promote it if we recognize what makes it up and in what
patterns it runs. This opens up an exciting field, which unfortunately is far too
little known up to now.
You have already learned something about Jean Piaget. I told you about the
“Three Mountains Experiment”. He established a theory of cognitive development
in children and adolescents. Others built on his research and transferred the insight
that development follows a logical, always the same course to adults. The message
is simple: not everyone can think everything, and that has to do with their develop-
ment.
2.1 Stages of Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg [1] built his stages of moral development on Jean Piaget’s
theory. He lifted them into adulthood, because he found out that development
does not end with the end of puberty. He distinguished pre-conventional, conven-
tional and post-conventional stages. In post-conventional stages, people question
rules for the first time. They are able to orientate themselves on their own prin-
ciples (in our sense: to develop attitudes). They can think things beyond the exist-
ing system and thus also produce new thinking. Lawrence Kohlberg focused on
the political sphere, but his development model is also transferable to the eco-
nomic sphere. When we, as human resources managers, are looking for people
who can question things, we are looking for people with post-conventional think-
ing. For Lawrence Kohlberg, this is level 5. These people have extensive educa-
tion, which does not necessarily have to be formal. They are able to recognize
and weigh up different points of view – and develop their own points of view
from which they can convince others. In the stage before that, the conventional
stage 4, things are different: one orients oneself by rules, by authority, by guide-
lines. So if people are too slavishly oriented towards “new work” or agility, if
they even think one is right and the other is not, they are probably conventional
thinkers. Even if they are oriented towards something that seems unconventional.
I will use the term post-conventional thinking more often throughout the book,
and I mean people who have internalized “both... and” – thinking, and who are
able to break rules. This is a very decisive point: Only those who can keep rules
and at the same time break them with good reason combine two poles and thus
show tolerance for ambiguity, provided that keeping and breaking rules is not
done out of self-interest or becomes dogma itself. Everyone else is looking for
2.2 The Subject-Object Theory of Robert Kegan 33
the solution or truth. They either obey something or they don’t obey something.
It’s structurally the same. But they do not produce anything new. Lawrence
Kohlberg died in 1987 and was a professor at Harvard University. Like his stu-
dent Robert Kegan, born in 1948, who further developed his work and continues
to advance the Ego-Development Theory today.
cc Post-conventional thinkers no longer necessarily adhere to prescribed

rules or align themselves with the theories or models of thought of a school
or social currents. They allow different approaches to co-exist, just as they can
leave viewpoints. They explore the point of view of others, without wanting to
bring them into line. They look for connecting solutions in the interest of all.
They are educated, but never one-sided, because they are driven by interest
in many things. They are strong personalities who seek feedback and want to
develop. This enables them to develop their own and higher principles. They
are not afraid of experiments because they do not claim to do everything right.
They update their basic assumptions with new experience. They develop their
intuition and empathy.
2.2 The Subject-Object Theory of Robert Kegan
Robert Kegan [2] later dissolved the steps of Lawrence Kohlberg after an initial
takeover and transferred them into phases that merged into each other in a spiral.
He enlarged the radius of observation by generalizing the development of thought
and developing his “subject-object theory”.
The central idea of this is that people always strive for a subject-object balance.
The development begins with the small child, who is completely subject. It is fused
to the mother, there is no object. In the course of the years the object becomes big-
ger and bigger. I’m no longer me, but Svenja Hofert. An author, someone who has
experienced something, someone who is shaped by many things. I am much more
than my impulses and my needs. I am an object. This enables me to control my
impulses (coming from the subject).
This also means that the ego with its own needs and its limitations becomes
smaller and smaller, while the object with the ideas of others and the world, of
contexts and relationships becomes larger and larger. At some point, a person rec-
ognizes both meaning and insignificance in the larger context. The more he de-
taches himself from the subject, the freer he becomes in his decisions. At some
point he no longer acts out of self-interest and on impulse, but as part of something
ever greater.
That’s a big thought. Of course, a person who is further developed in this sense
has completely different thoughts and needs than a person who is less developed in
this sense. This means that the larger the object, the greater the distance to itself.
With this distance the ability to self-regulate increases. One sees more and more
possibilities, approaches, ways of thinking.
A person with a “large object” sees more and includes many more aspects.
He is happier, usually less neurotic and less often mentally ill. He can control
himself better, needs less guidance. He is also more capable of collaboration
and cooperation. Life becomes easier: At every level of subject-object balance,
conflicts are handled more productively than before. He can pick up many peo-
ple because he has all the previous states within him and is able to respond to
them. He can reduce his thinking and at the same time recognize what he can
use to win others.
Man, less developed in this sense, is even more subject and does not recognize
his limits. For him, his world is logical. He can therefore pick up his peers, but he
can go beyond that. He cannot enhance his thinking.
cc Why do you need post-conventional thinkers in your company? Manag-

ers in an agile context have to see a lot. This is all the more true when a
cultural change is required. The more complex the environment and
the challenge, the more tasks require differentiated thinking. Deal
again with the definition of post-conventional thinkers (see above) and
go through individual positions in your company. You will notice that
this differentiated view is not helpful everywhere, but that it only really
bothers you when you need someone who adapts without question-
ing.
Whoever fills positions needs this thinking in any case, because only
then can he or she recognize others who think this way or differently. A
modern, responsible HR department that helps to shape the company
must be led by people who have post-conventional thinking – or in the
Kegan sense an “object” that can detach itself from itself.
Coaches and consultants need this thinking as well. Only with this
is systemic thinking possible at all. By this I mean systemic thinking
that accepts that there are different systems, recognizes them as

equal and, beyond the application of methods and tools, can also free
itself from them. Coaching training hardly promotes this thinking, nor
can it be done in the short time available. In my opinion, coaching
training should also be more inclusive. Systemic approaches are im-
portant and helpful, but “human workers” also need philosophical,
psychological and neurobiological backgrounds, in general practice
AND theory. The fine art is the philosophy. Every coach and consultant
always has to deal with existential questions. The question of mean-
ing is existential in any case. And it is being asked more and more of-
ten in the modern working world. It is closely linked to the basic as-
sumptions we have and the “highest good“to which we align
ourselves. Someone with agile thinking will not be lead down the
garden path. Simple answers will no longer be accepted, especially by
young, sense-oriented specialists.
Robert Kegan differentiates his phases according to which perceptions and ex-
periences we experience as belonging to us – SUBJECTIVE – and which appear to
us as OBJECTIVE – and not belonging to us. So what are we – and what are we
not?
Everything that appears to a subject as an object can be referred to. For ex-
ample, I see and recognize different points of view, I can describe them. However,
I am not these viewpoints; I am not merged with them. This enables me to regu-
late them, to accept feedback and not to take criticism personally. Lawrence
Kohlberg does not see the steps separated from each other, but rather merges into
each other in a spiral. The aim of development is to create a balance. This means
that the subject does not only want to understand the object, it wants to merge
with the object.
Robert Kegan distinguishes between In-Formation and Transformation. This is
something like the learning already introduced by me as opposed to development.
With “In-Formation” new content is filled into a vessel, with “Transformation” a
new, additional vessel is created. This is even more than changing a scheme, as it
involves fundamental views. Most personality development and transformation
processes in companies are therefore not. No new thinking has emerged, the old
thinking has only been developed further.
Table 2.1 The thoughts of Robert Kegan

Second column: Subject (belonging to us)
Third column: Object (everything outside, − yet – not
Subject belonging to us)
0. Incorperative self Everything is me
1. Impulsive Impulses, social perceptions Reflexes (sensory)
2. Imperial Opinions, needs, preferences Impulses, social perceptions
3. Interpersonal Abstractions, reciprocity, Opinions, needs, preferences
inner states, self-perceptions
4. Institutional (self- Abstract systems, multiple Abstractions, reciprocity,
authoring mind) role awareness, self-regulation inner states, self-perceptions
5. Interindividual Dialectical interpenetration of Abstract systems, multiple
(self-transforming myself and others role awareness, self-
mind) regulation
In Table 2.1, Robert Kegan’s thoughts are brought even further into form.
2.2.1 Self-Updating: Digression on Abraham Maslow
The only developmental approach that has become widely known is that of
Abraham Maslow [3], a representative of humanistic psychology such as Robert
Kegan and Lawrence Kohlberg. Abraham Maslow’s goal is to make people happier
and to advance the world. Happy people are desirable from the point of view of
humanistic and also positive psychology, because they make the world a better
place.
Abraham Maslow saw not so much different patterns of thinking as needs. He
was also not an empiricist, but took a philosophical approach to the subject.
Therefore, his theories are philosophical models of thought supported by experi-
ence. Consequently, Maslow updated his approaches again. He never claimed to
have found the truth. This is often missed out when, for example, you learn about
the “Maslow’s pyramid of needs” in a training session.
According to Maslow, the human being strives to first satisfy deficit needs,
which include physiological needs, security needs, social needs and self-esteem.
Only when these have been achieved, the growth needs awaken. Topics such as
creativity, spirituality and authenticity become the focus of attention.
Abraham Maslow lived from 1908 to 1970, and he never published his pyramid,
which has been included in so many training documents, himself. It was probably
a student who put it into circulation. Maslow himself later modified his model
considerably. It was also clear to him: Not everyone has the same “deficit needs”
and also the sequence is not the same for everyone.
So there are people who behave morally even when they are starving, and others
do not self-actualize even when they have satisfied all their deficits. The ego devel-
opment of Jane Loevinger could provide an explanation for this, but perhaps there
is also something like an internalized moral attitude. Strong faith could also pro-
vide for moral behaviour despite existential threat. Possibly education is also a
protection. Conversely, an early ego development could stand in the way of self-
realization, but so could faith.
In later works, Abraham Maslow distinguishes three motives for growth: cogni-
tive needs (knowledge, understanding, new experiences ...), aesthetic needs (sym-
metry, order, beauty ...) and self-actualization (tapping one’s own potential, finding
meaning). The highest form of self-actualization became for him the art of distanc-
ing himself from himself, the “self-transcendence“. With this, Abraham Maslow
basically describes people at level 6 according to Robert Kegan or postconven-
tional thinking according to Lawrence Kohlberg and Jane Loevinger. On closer
inspection, Abraham Maslow mixes motives and ego development – which is not
surprising, since ego development models were created after the 1960s and only
became popular much later. Basically, his thoughts reflect the attempt to capture a
successive development, with which his fellow student Clare W. Graves [4] was
also concerned, who thus laid the foundation for the now very popular “Spiral
Dynamics“.
His concept of self-transcendence is important in our context, because espe-
cially higher managers must be able to distance themselves from themselves. This
reduces egoisms or even curbs them completely. This has nothing to do with self-
abandonment, but with the ability to see oneself as unimportant when it comes to
the big picture. This makes the individual unimportant, he becomes a breath of
wind in the universe and a point in the company. With these thoughts comes humil-
ity – humility before life and before others.
The Greek philosopher and army commander Xenophon [5] – at that time such
seemingly contradictory activities were not yet mutually exclusive – describes in
“Anabasis” how he understands leadership. The leader enables his army to lead it-
self. Leadership can therefore be assumed by anyone; there is no dependence on a
leader. Xenophon chose his warriors so that everyone could lead themselves. No
one aspired to place themselves above others. For me this is an attitude that ex-
presses humility before the task – to defeat the Persians. This also has a lot to do
Jane Loevinger’s ego development theory is empirically proven. In decades

of research, Jane Loevinger identified eight developmental stages, a ninth
and tenth was later identified by Susanne Cook-Greuter. The verification is
based on more than 14,000 individual characteristics. The later a level, the
more complex its mindset. This also means that people in later stages are
more difficult to recognize as such – there are simply many different charac-
teristics. The regularity of development is nevertheless quite easy to follow,
even though people can be very different at different stages of development.
Other personality traits of course do not override ego development, but they
do change the way they appear. With later ego development, a motive for
power, for example, no longer expresses itself as dominance and control
behaviour, but rather, for example, as the ability to revise one’s own posi-
tions without losing the ability to make decisions.
with the mindset – thinking and acting in the service of a greater idea, freedom.
2.3 Stages of Ego Development
All developmental theories show that development takes place in leaps and
bounds. Cognitive development (Jean Piaget) as well as the development of
morality (Lawrence Kohlberg) and the subject-object theory of Robert Kegan,
which he later turned into a spiral. People develop into the social system until
they have found their own place and position. Some, however, remain at a cer-
tain position. They continue to learn, but no longer fundamentally change their
mindset.
Some also develop out of this social position in order to reposition themselves
in a larger context. This position is then more fluid and changeable. The logic of
thought and action is therefore changing. It develops towards a position of its own
within the socially accepted framework and sometimes even beyond – depending
on what the environment demands and promotes.
Jane Loevinger’s theory is the most differentiated and also practically well us-
able. In more than 40 years of research, the psychologist, who proceeded strictly
mathematically and statistically in her research, developed her “theory of ego de-
2.3 Stages of Ego Development 39
Fig. 2.1 Building blocks of personality
velopment”. She found patterns in her data that indicated that personal develop-
ment takes place as a process and takes place in stages that are clearly distinct from
one another.
Ego-Development moderates the appearance of other building blocks of per-
sonality. What they are is not so easy to grasp. In personality psychology one
knows characteristics and motives, but they are not always clearly separated. In the
work of neurobiologist Gerhard Roth [6], these are formed on the middle and upper
limbic level. They are co-determined by the (innate) character, but are also socially
developed. Character and temperament are on the lowest level and are essentially
determined genetically and epigenetically. Above the uppermost limbic level there
is a cognitive-linguistic level that also influences what appears to us as personality.
Gerhard Roth is not concerned with ego development. In my understanding, how-
ever, see also Fig. 2.1, this would have to be moderated from top to bottom.
Language plays a significant role in the model. Their differentiation has much to do
with ego development. I have written about this in more detail in my book
“Psychologie für Berater, Coachs und Personalentwickler” (“Psychology for
Consultants, Coaches and Personnel Developers”) [7].
In my sketch “Building blocks of personality” (see Fig. 2.1). you will also find
the ego development again. However, this is unscientific. Ego-development cannot
really be separated from personality, just as the mindset is not a construct of its
own. It is not a construct that is selective enough to be scientifically studied.
Is it identical with ego development, is it more or less? This is a matter of defini-

tion, let alone because Mindset is used so differently.
In this book, I have so far and will continue to use the two terms largely syn-
onymously as logic of thought and action and mindset, but this is my definition and
ultimately a pragmatic decision.
I am not concerned with right or wrong, but with the chance to make a model –
ego development – understandable, approachable and tangible and to connect it
with an idea that would be much more vague without this model – the idea of the
mindset.
One could also argue about ego development – and researchers have already
done so. However, the demarcation of the eight levels is very sound and selective.
Jane Loevinger could make this distinction for eight levels. She suspected that
there might be a ninth, but was unable to prove this empirically due to the limited
data available. She recorded the ego development status with a measuring instru-
ment called the “Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUST)“.
The evaluation is anything but easy, it requires a very long training, because
more than 14,000 individual characteristics are involved, which make up the levels.
A difficulty also lies in the evaluation, which is done by hand: The evaluator him-
self needs a later stage to be able to carry out the evaluation. The thought: You can
only recognize something that you can think for yourself.
However, as few people reach level E8 (about 4%) and even fewer get beyond it
(1%), staff for such evaluations is scarce.
The empirical gap to E9 and E10 was later closed by Susanne Cook-Greuter,
who found in her data a ninth (integrated) and tenth (flowing) level, which together
reached well below one percent of all persons examined.
None of the stages can be skipped, so the development takes place from stage to
stage. Each stage integrates the previous one. This means that each further stage
adds complementary aspects to the other. At the same time complexity increases.
The steps after Jane Loevinger, but also those after Robert Kegan always move
between two poles: Autonomy and connectedness. This means that people always
strive in one direction in their development – and this direction also says a lot about
what attracts and repels them. This is shown in Fig. 2.2. In E5, people move to the
centre, that is, they want to belong, but at the same time they want to be indepen-
dent. This has the effect that they want to set themselves apart, but at the same time
still belong. They also rely heavily on what is state of the art in their “group”, for
example a project management method like Scrum.
The subsequent development leads more to an own attitude, which can free it-
self from it. “That’s how I see it,” anyone can say at any level, but a person in E6
has much more of his own coloring and self-production of thoughts and ideas. At
2.3
Stages of Ego Development
Fig. 2.2 The poles of ego development. (Svenja Hofert)

41
E6, there are two flows, which at first have a very different influence. There are
those who strive strongly for “We” and teamwork, who demand equality and com-
munity – and those who follow the idea of self-realization and independence.
Structurally, it is the same: I strive for my own standards within the framework of
what is socially acceptable. This is very important when working with this model:
forget the content, look at the structure. People in level E7 as well as those in E5
are again striving towards the middle between the poles, but on a different level, by
looking at the different perspectives and truths from above, and possibly integrat-
ing them or letting them stand side by side. People in E8 go more on the journey to
the others, to bonding. However, they usually also pursue larger and contextual is-
sues, such as creating value for all. The integration of different – even paradoxi-
cal – topics is therefore often even more successful at this level than in E7, where
you are often very good at illuminating different positions. Typically, people at
level E8 and above also find their way to another, less material and more convention-
dissolving form of spirituality.
2.3.1 The Pre-Conventional Level
The pre-conventional level actually belongs to childhood and puberty, but some
people stop here. In E2, for example, the law of ego and impulse still reigns. E3 can
already curb his impulse, but will mainly focus on his needs. This stage is still quite
common in adults. Adults who have the focus of their logic here are selfish, but
often assertive. This often makes them successful. Drawing the line between nar-
cissism and psychopathy is difficult, there is overlap.
An impulse-controlled person in level E3 sees himself and his immediate envi-
ronment first and foremost, he only submits to rules if the rule violation harms him
and the probability of it coming out is high. In E4 he also recognizes the others and
their rules, thus internalizing them. Now he wants to belong – and no longer follow
his own path along the biggest advantage for himself. In return, he gives up to fol-
low his needs at all costs. If he does, he’s embarrassed. E3 is not embarrassed by
this, he considers what he is doing to be justified and right.
The stages follow each other, each following one integrates the previous one
in itself and brings it to another level. It is not necessary to go through all the
stages. In many cases development stagnates at E5, the rationalist level. Many
young people climb this level at the transition from school or university to work.
Some, however, end school with a mature E6 thinking, often following their
own ideas more idiosyncratically and independently of the outside world.
Always and at any time something is possible that is called “temporary regres-
sion”, that is, falling back into an older stage – for example because the environ-
ment forces you to do so or rewards you for “thinking differently”. Memorization
at school or university is ultimately based on E4/E5 thinking, own conclusions
and independent thinking requires E5 to E6. Only a few educational institutions
support a development into the post-conventional area, and incidentally many of
the alternative school forms do not. This would presuppose that pupils/students
are explicitly invited to form dissenting opinions, including opinions that are
not reflected in the current spectrum. However, it should always be borne in
mind that dissenting opinions cannot be dissociated from the previous process
of social adaptation (E4), forming professional identity (E5) and independent
value formation (E6). In the end everything is right and important, it is a devel-
opment process, not just a development step.
The Loevinger levels can easily be assigned to the levels of Lawrence Kohlberg
and thus form a pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional area.
People at level E3 use others for their own purposes. The world revolves
around them or their small universe. They are a lot of subject and little object,
in regard to Robert Kegan. If we imagine these as balls, the subject’s ball is a
medicine ball and the object’s ball is a tennis ball. This orientation can tip over
into the antisocial, so it’s not surprising that E3 is a common level in prisons. In
the criminal milieu, one E3 is often the one who controls and directs the others
(E4). So you can by no means say that those at a higher level also have more
power. It can even be the other way round, in totalitarian systems this is the rule.
At higher levels, people are more social, balanced, adaptable and inclusive.
Since they reject immoral means, they can also become victims. When you look
at politics, you may be able to imagine the effects of different ego development.
You will certainly think of politicians at early and late stages immediately.
Some mercilessly enforce what they think is right, others integrate and bind oth-
ers in order to take them along. Who would you rather have as a force for change
in your company?
The Drama of the Talented Employee

In companies I often experience employees whose thinking is apparently more
advanced than that of the manager. This almost always leads to frustration.
Because only a mature manager can really recognize and use the value of these
employees. An example: A copywriter delivers beautifully written works that
include many aspects, but the boss doesn’t like it. He believes that one should
write something the way he has learned to write it.
These bosses are also blind to the ideas of the employees. You just don’t see
them. It is a little bit the “drama of the gifted employee”, because a later ego
development is not equal to intelligence, but moderates its appearance. This
means that these employees can also make better use of their intelligence – also
more in the interests of others.
But just think of Kaiser Wilhelm, who predicted the car to have no future
because the horse was ahead of it. It is not only that you close your eyes, it is
also that you cannot open them at all. It should therefore be the ambition of
every human manager to make those who are at least at the same stage as the
employees into managers. When it comes to development, the boss should be
one or two steps ahead of them.
2.3.2 The Conventional Level
In our western educational system people are prepared for the conventional level.
They should adapt (E4), become a strong individual (E5), but also set their own
standards in leading positions (E6). In other societies E4 can be a general target
level: It is not a matter of forming one’s own conscience, but rather of adapting to
the social framework conditions, and from some perspective: to submit to them.
Most therapies also aim to bring people into their midst – that is, to E5 to E6. This
does not mean, of course, that people need to be treated in earlier phases. All phases
have their healthy and their “sick” sides. However, the susceptibility to mental ill-
ness decreases with increasing ego development [8].
The Loevinger levels E4 to E6 show how a human being gradually becomes an
independent part of society in order to finally form his own conscience. According
to Jane Loevinger this own conscience is a characteristic of the self-determined
level, that is, E6. Before, that is, at E4 and E5, this own conscience is not yet fully
developed. People at E4 strive to be part of the whole, as the term “socialized
mind” according to Robert Kegan describes. The focus of their attention is on be-
haviour, their own and that of others.
E5 are easily aligned with content standards, such as quality or specific proce-
dures and best practice. It was not until E6 that they developed their own scale,
which they would place above that of the group. Environment scandals would be
more difficult to imagine if all parties involved were at a level E6 or higher. Of
course, interpersonal integrity is not equal to ego development, but a connection is
obvious [8].
Robert Kegan is of the opinion that a world would be a better one with only
post-conventional thinkers. It is possible that digitalization and artificial intelli-
gence will help us to reach higher ego stages of development. Because if there is
only highly qualified employment and every person otherwise follows his or her
inner drive – financed by a basic income, for example – nothing more is needed
than people who can lead and control themselves.
But at the moment I still see a lot to be done there. After all, many companies
do not base their personnel policy on the image of a post-conventional person who
is self-determined. Silicon Valley is anything but post-conventional, but extremely
efficiency-driven. People do not use their thinking tools to solve the big problems,
but to develop viable business models. This is also the case in the New Work envi-
ronment. Although the big ideas hang in the air and are considered attractive, they
are still thought of in efficiency categories. But if we understand the model of ego
development, we know that these can be further developed if exactly this thinking
becomes more flexible.
Thus companies continue to build on dependency. On the fact that people make
their labour available and in return receive security – the good old mutual contract
as we already knew it from the time before the turn of the millennium. They impose
the identity of the company on them instead of developing their personality. Little
has changed in recent years, except that more different approaches have been
added. However, some companies show that there is another way. They hire their
managers with a new and different view. And if the general mindset doesn’t change,
from my perspective, more and more diversity has been emerging over the past few
years.
Agility in the sense of applying agile project management methods is an E5 and
E6 topic. With stand-ups and retrospectives, it offers a fixed framework for com-
munication that is still needed in E5. Self-organization on the other hand is rather
anchored in E6, it requires a sense of responsibility including the ability to make
decisions.
This stage has two main characteristics, as Susanne Cook-Greuter shows: One
form of E6 is more oriented towards oneself, for example one’s own career and
self-realization. The other version of the E6 has a cooperation-oriented mindset.
One could say: Self-realization in the I versus self-realization in the We. But struc-
turally, that is, in the action logic, it all boils down to the same thing. Whether it is
me or us – both believe that something is true and right. Taking responsibility for
myself and others is a big issue at this stage.
In post-conventional thinking this partially dissolves, you see more possibilities
again, for yourself and others. Orientation is no longer provided only by one’s own
standards, but more and more by the big picture.
Trained but Not Learned

Mr. Huber leads his team as an expert and distributes tasks to his employees.
Through training, he has learned to talk to each employee on a daily basis and
has adapted his behavior to a cooperative management style. As before the
training sessions, he still views it positively afterwards when employees delve
as deeply as possible into a topic and perform tasks in a conscientious manner
that produces many alternative solutions. This reflects a typical approach of E5.
The focus is on the immediate solution (“how exactly do I do ...?”) and not on
superordinate values and concepts. So Mr. Huber can adopt the behavior, but
not produce the thinking that goes with it. That’s why his behaviour is not con-
sistent. Only when he gives up his conviction and begins to search for solutions,
for example in the contradictory thesis or another perspective, a change in
thinking take place, a logic or “scheme” changes.
Many personality developments, like Huber’s, manifest themselves at level
E5, where about 38% of all people remain. This is the level of many experts, but
also of some managers.
The development goal should be to mirror Mr. Huber’s behavior and lead
him to his needs. What does he perceive? What does he not see? How’s he be-
having? And how does he not behave? The question of not seeing, not perceiv-
ing or not behaving can be very helpful and open eyes. In addition to coaching,
Mr. Huber would need group experience to reflect on himself. A development in
E6 would take at least two to three years – and must be wanted by himself.
Human resources managers should ask themselves whether this is the right
way – or whether they will not be able to achieve more quickly through a new
appointment.
2.3.3 The Post-Conventional Level
Post-conventional thinking is hard to grasp, but it is usually perceived by others as

somehow “different”. When I hand out texts that come from people with conven-
tional and post-conventional logic, one recognizes the special, possibly also the
foreign in the post-conventional thoughts. It is somehow not off the peg, you
haven’t read anything like that before, it is unusual, unique. It’s the same in conver-
sation. Post-conventional people can go into a company and just ask questions and
get an idea. They no longer have to prove themselves, for example, they do not
have to worry that someone might question their competence if they do not put it
out there immediately. They see themselves as in constant development, recognize,

for example, that they were different in the past than they are today, and perceive
their own needs and those of others in a very differentiated way. I am often sur-
prised by the very high empathy of people in later ego development phases. This is
quite different from empathy in the conventional field. It simply involves many
more aspects: You can see how the body reacts, hear the voice, pick up many non-
verbal messages and also the verbal ones in all their complexity.
Some post-conventional think in cascades, take in information and then sort it.
Post-conventionalists are usually cooperative, even if they are introverted; they re-
ally want to hear the other opinion and they demand feedback. Some can be un-
comfortable, but it is important to separate character and ego development. Post-
conventionalists don’t simply push through with their opinion, they rather listen to
other positions.
The more we move into the later post-conventional area, the more we notice the
principles by which the post-conventional is oriented – but this does not degenerate
into harping on about principles, it is rather clarity. Post-conventionalists really do
think systemically and constructivist. They no longer search for truth because they
know that it cannot be found. This allows them to let go of a lot.
This is also where problems arise. Certain jobs are more likely to be handled
with conventional thinking, such as that of a footballer. Unlike a coach, it would
probably be a hindrance for the footballer if he were to ask himself very fundamen-
tal questions. A commercial manager at level E7 is probably not an ideal occupa-
tion either, because relativization – typical for people at level E7 – can also lead to
circular thinking. People are sometimes more persuasive in an E6 because they can
present goals and truths that orientation seekers need. Events such as that of
Anthony Robbins, an American motivation trainer, target people in an early E6,
because a clear focus on what you want is exactly what they are all about. Post-
conventional ones are unlikely to reach them. The author Susan Cain, presumably
post-conventional, writes in her book “Still” [9] how she took part in such an event
but could not relate at all.
2.3.4 Ego-Development as Second Intelligence
Ego-Development not only moderates how intelligence shows itself, it also influ-
ences the way in which qualities show themselves. The best known property model
is that of the “Big Five“, also called “OCEAN“. This model is based on many sci-
entific studies. It is based on a lexical approach [10]. OCEAN, these are the five
qualities Openness (openness to new experiences), Conscientiousness, Extraversion

(Extraversion, Agreeableness) and Neuroticism. An extraverted person with low
ego development would therefore be more of a frequent speaker who pays little
attention to the other person. An introvert could be quiet and reserved – and use the
“That’s how I am” as a general basis for life. Someone with a high level of neu-
roticism in the Big Five can constantly think in only one direction – I cannot do
anything, I’m not worth anything etc. – or reflect on his own thinking and thus also
control it. The latter speaks for a higher ego development.
Is OCEAN related to ego development? Studies have shown that there is only
one direct link to the Big Five and that is the scale of openness to new experiences.
People with a higher openness more easily reach a higher ego development level
[8]. This connection is obvious, because those who develop must welcome change.
It could be a very practical start to take a closer look at the open employees of your
company in the OCEAN model. Is it possible that these would also be the ones who
would drive change more easily? Are they more interested in their own develop-
ment?
Ego-Development could also be seen as a kind of second intelligence. However,
there is only one connection with the classical IQ test in the area of word fluency
[8]. The more complex someone thinks, the more words he needs. But it is not only
about words: Ego-Development shows the structure of thinking. People with later
Ego-Development include much more aspects in their minds, not the details, but
things like: What is the situation? What are needs? What is the narrower context,
what is the wider one? If this is coupled with cognitive skills and social-
communicative characteristics, such people are ideally suited to play a leading role
in complex environments.
cc Openness can be promoted and thus indirectly also ego development.

Formats that stimulate reflection are particularly suitable, such as the
“Deep Dialogue” according to David Bohm, in which there is very inten-
sive and non-judgmental listening, depth and a new group experience.
Claus Otto Scharmer’s “Theory U” also fits in here, if it is really used as
originally intended – i.e. not dogmatically. So does every exchange that
serves to explore other perspectives and to search for new thoughts
and insights.
Openness arises above all in unfamiliar (thinking) environments,
which is why travel, time out and encounters promote openness and
thus also ego development. A small, practical method of coming up
with new ideas is called “Feedforward”. In feedforward, one person
formulates a question and asks this question to all participants of a
group in turn. For three minutes each participant produces answers,

the questioner says nothing about it, does not comment – just
thanks. The answers are often completely different, which trains the
awareness of different perspectives and points of view and the wis-
dom of the many.
Retrospectives, which are not simply formally carried out, but are
really embedded and include the meta-level of collaboration, are just
as helpful. However, the view to the outside is particularly important.
If you want to expand your mindset, you should get suggestions from
others. Preferably from those you don’t usually have on your schedule.
With this I explicitly include the “agilists”, because they too have a ten-
dency to introspection. An interesting way could be the company
swap, in which the board members or managing directors of two
completely different companies exchange jobs for a few weeks. This
way they experience themselves in a completely different environ-
ment and will almost certainly take a lot of new things into their tradi-
tional company.
I have accompanied some top managers who were in E5 or on the transition to E6.
Such early “E6s” are characterized by their search for concepts and theories to
which they can refer. Since they can hardly find an answer to challenging questions
within themselves (at best they glorify certain approaches and concepts), they are
often the wrong people for their job. It is possible to develop them if they want to,
but if E5 has been in this phase for a long time, there may be a certain reluctance to
engage in prolonged self-transformation processes. In this phase, many would
rather learn something quickly, close the gap. That doesn’t help exactly. Table 2.2
shows an overview of the stages. I have integrated here the action logics according
to William Torbert and David Rooke [11], which have extended the model to man-
agement research.
2.3.4.1 William Torbert and David Rooke

When we talk about the topic of Ego-Development, two more should be mentioned
besides the names Lawrence Kohlberg, Robert Kegan and Jane Loevinger: Bill
(William) Torbert, who, together with his colleague David Rooke, conducts inten-
sive research on the effectiveness of managers based on their ego development. In
Table 2.2 Ego-development in the overview
50
E4 community
E3 impulsive defined E5 rational E6 self-determined
Motto (Binder [8]) – To be part of To be competent To be efficient
2
Plain (Kohlberg) Preconveniently Conventional Conventional Conventional

share (after Torbert and 5% 12% 38% 30%
Rooke [11])
Logic of action as Opportunist Diplomat Expert Achiever
manager (Torbert/Rooke)
Central competence Assert yourself, Integrate and adapt Finding solutions, Design processes, achieve
conquer the market achieving short-term long-term goals, managers
goals
Risk Must be checked Division into good Get bogged down, Not recognizing your own
and bad, in and out disparage the opinion of subjectivity
group others
Suitable test methods – DISG® and Big five, MBTI® and MSA® or motive analyses and
methods with little more sophisticated dialectical approaches
differentiation procedures
Appropriate theory – – Solution-oriented Practical systemic approaches (e.g.
short-term consulting systemic constellations)
Identification mark Ruthless, Adapted, little own Content focused, truth Has clear values, knows who he is,
manipulative opinion seeking, willing to learn performs well, does not see the
shadow of his own subjectivity
Development impetus Not making Not (really) belong Not to be accepted as an Not achieving your goals, not being
progress, then to something, then independent personality, successful (whereby success does
develop according strengthening your then develop superior not have to be interpreted in the
to E4 (standards) own character values that are sense of promotion), then put
independent of the previous value standards into
context perspective
Basics of Developmental Psychology and Its Significance for the Mindset
the table (Table 2.2) both are also listed. Their questionnaire for measurement is
called “Action Inquiry“[12].
The research duo assumes that leaders must not be born but developed [11].
They also assume that each level has appropriate tasks and responsibilities.
Thinkers of development level E5, who William Torbert and David Rooke call
“diplomats“, are experts and lone wolves. However, diplomats are less suited to
take on management tasks that include involving others and achieving overall
goals. To do this, they need an E6 action logic; according to the research duo, the
so-called “Achievers“possess that. These managers achieve goals and involve oth-
ers in the process. They use what we know from leadership theory as a transac-
tional style, or can learn it easily. The transformational leadership style can also
suit them. A diplomat is more likely to find this difficult, because he still looks too
much at himself and too little at the others. If we take the theory of Robert Kegan,
the subject is still too large for a diplomat. He will also often have a tendency to
resort to book knowledge. This does not mean that book knowledge is bad; it is
only problematic if you cannot detach yourself from it and produce thoughts that
are independent of it and do not need theory. Diplomats will find it difficult to see
the big picture and pursue long-term goals that are out of their domain. All this is
the strength of the Achiever – the typical manager in a corporate context. Outside
the companies, he is also seen as a self-actualizer – he does not have to make a
career.
Post-conventional thinkers at level E7 (William Torbert and David Rooke’s “in-
dividualist“) are particularly effective when they consult, as they can combine and
integrate different perspectives. Level E8 post-conventional thinking (in William
Torbert and David Rooke’s case “strategist“) is effective in larger change processes
in which managers have to consider different perspectives, aspects, ambiguity and
conflicting interests. Post-conventional thinking of level E9 (David Rooke’s “al-
chemist”) is appropriate when it comes to social transformation on a global level.
A level E10 thinker, on the other hand, has probably long since left the business
context ... Or is applying to become the new Dalai Lama.
2.3.5 Ego-Development and the Challenges

of Transformation Processes
Let us understand agility as mobility and flexibility, quick adaptability. If we un-

derstand that in times of digitalization, especially now that artificial intelligence is
moving in everywhere, it should be designed and accompanied by people with a
mobile mindset, then Ego-Development helps us to understand and recognize the
subject of mindsets more clearly. Then we see that Mindset is not just Mindset.
And recognize that the new working world tends to demand people in later phases,
that is, it requires a kind of shift in development.
People at level 6 and above are more capable of New Work and transformation
than those at earlier levels. We know they are rare specimens. And it is also by no
means the case that every employee must have such a way of thinking. You have to
consider the requirements of a task and the challenge of a situation to decide which
mindset you need.
Studies show that in change processes the effectiveness increases with the Ego-
Development level. One of them relates to the developmental stages of CEOs and
comes from William Torbert and David Rooke. I quote from the summary:
In 10 longitudinal organizational development efforts, the 5 CEOs measuring at the

late strategist stage of development supported 15 progressive organizational transfor-
mations. By contrast, the 5 CEOs measuring at pre-strategist stages of development
supported a total of 0 progressive organizational transformations. The progressive
transforming organizations became industry leaders on a number of business indices.
The 3 organizations that did not progress developmentally lost personnel, industry
standing, and money as well [13].
Strategist is a later or fully developed E8 in Jane Loevinger’s model. There are dif-
ferent degrees of development at each stage.Another study by Bushe and Barrie
[14] confirms the higher effectiveness of organizational consultants with a later
stage of development.
It was based on characteristics identified in previous investigations that an orga-
nizational consultant should have:
• Analytical skills
• Influence
• Professional role conception
• Problem solving skills
• Profit orientation
• Tactical flexibility
• Strong self-concept
• Use of theories
• Development of a common understanding
The scientists put forward five theses:

1. Extraversion correlates positively with consulting competence in change pro-

cesses. This hypothesis could not be confirmed, so there is no connection.
Introverts and extraverts are equally competent.
2. Intuition (the N in MBTI) correlates positively, Sensing (the S in MBTI) nega-
tively. Intuitive people think a lot about the future and about possibilities to
“know” something in a deep analytical way, sensitive people are more in the
moment and in the now experience. The first hypothesis was confirmed, the
second was not. That is, intuitive people are more competent, but sensitive peo-
ple are not significantly less competent.
3. Thinking or feeling makes no difference. Thinkers are more factual and ana-
lytical and often put the content before the feeling, so they are less likely to
adapt to others. This hypothesis was not correct. Thinking correlates positively
with consulting competence.
Perceiving in MBTI (Perceiving versus Judging) correlates positively with
consulting competence. “Receiving” people act out of “input” and often change
their a ctions, “judging” means following a plan and staying with it. This hy-
pothesis was not correct. It’s unrelated.
4. There is a connection between later ego development and consulting compe-
tence in change processes. Those who had reached the Conscientious level or
higher (i.e. self-determined level E6) were more competent to consult. They
were also more common T-types in the MBTI.
Thus, the more transformation processes are involved, the more likely it is that
personal maturity at least equivalent to level E6 thinking will help; post-conventional
thinking seems necessary for greater challenges. I can confirm this from my practi-
cal point of view: Those managers who were caught up in E5 thinking, or even
early “E6s” (i.e. those with a high proportion of E5) encountered stronger limita-
tions in their companies than later “E6s” and post-conventional thinkers. But one
should also not heroise this in the sense of “faster, higher, further”. Post-
conventionalists are less easy to integrate into an organizational context, can fun-
damentally question things and are sometimes less willing to adapt.
Would the founder of a kebab shop also be more successful with post-
conventional thinking? My hypothesis – no. Or also: He wouldn’t be interested in
kebab roasting at all, or he would have a few weird hobbies on the side. For the
CEO of a globally operating company, the situation is different. He needs a post-
conventional mindset. Unlike possibly the CFO, who is supposed to keep an eye
mainly on figures.
Collaboration between people with different thinking and acting logics is pro-
ductively possible from E6 onwards. It should not be forgotten that an “early E6”
is quite different from a “late E6”. The “early E6” will have even less contact with
his own standards, will rather refer to something that is “occupied” and will gener-
ally look for guidelines and instructions. The “late E6” will already relativize and
perhaps even explore the perspectives of others very openly. Observe how deeply
someone listens when they hear something critical from another, how much they
get to the heart of a statement without having to defend themselves or present
themselves well. The more this is the case, the more it is specific for late “E6s” and
post-conventional.
Surface Versus Depth

Once, my son and I were on a cultural tour in a bus listening to two managers
talking. Each tried to look good in front of the other, exchanging information
without showing any real interest in the other. It was like a superficial game of
ping-pong, everyone trying to kick the ball back. Of course, people at any level
can have moments where they stay on the surface. But someone at a later stage
of ego development is potentially able to go deeper. However, he can also adapt
to the context and his current role and “downscale”. In this respect, a short con-
versation is of course not enough to assess the stage of development of people.
However, we can learn to recognize what stages are when we look at dialogues
from this point of view. What was once perhaps only a subtle feeling of other-
ness becomes more tangible. But beware of drawers! Always assume you’re
wrong first. ◄
The image of the staircase, with numbers ascending, is the disadvantage of this
model in a culture where “more” is better than “less” and ascending is seen as
positive. I have therefore created a simpler and more pragmatic variant of it, which
I will present later.
2.3.6 Requirements for Mindset from the Perspective

of Change Management
How should someone be shaped like, who is in charge of change? The require-
ments can be transferred one-to-one to a team that operates in the context of
change. Then the team should be able to act like that. It would thus be ripe for a
level 3 of self-organization (see page 126).
The list may of course vary depending on the environment:
• He/she should be able to take into account the context and system logic.
• He/she should be able to look at and judge a situation from different angles.
• He/she should be able to take a stand in critical situations (not just have an
opinion).
• He/she should be able to communicate appropriately with different characters
and developmental levels.
• He/she should perceive contradictions in expectations of him/herself without
wanting to resolve them at any price.
• He/she should be able to keep stakeholders in mind and take them into account
appropriately (as CEO, of course, also the shareholders).
• He/she should be able to consider different needs behind perspectives.
• He/she should have and keep in mind the overall vision and goals.
• He/she should be able to recognize his/her own goal, but also be able to adapt it
or force its adaptation.
• He/she should follow rules, but should also be able to change and break them
with good reason.
• He/she should be able to cooperate with others (in the sense I described).
• He/she should seek feedback and reflect on him/herself (self-perception).
• He/she must be able to give feedback in an appreciative and development-
enhancing manner.
• He/she should be able to install an update at any time, that is, be able to update
him/herself and his/her perception based on new environmental information
(self-updating).
• He/she should be able to decide in critical situations.
• He/she should be able to catalyze the energy of a team into targeted movement.
The catalogue of requirements is a little bit narrower for people who only support
changes without actively driving them forward:
This catalogue of requirements describes an “E7+”. In teams, these characteris-
tics can show up, even if the members do not all have this maturity after Ego-
Development. But it needs a certain critical mass. I am often asked how big it is – I
cannot say. It also depends on other personality traits. Sometimes a single person-
ality can “turn” an entire team, sometimes someone who could create value is
“mauled” by the environment. A decisive factor here is whether the management
clearly stands behind someone.
2.3.7 Requirements for Mindset from the Point of View

of Self-Organization
In an agile context, people should take responsibility, sometimes within a frame-

work set by frameworks. This means that they must be able to lead themselves,
whereby the ability to separate themselves from others is the basic requirement.
“Boundless” people can be sucked up, exploited and manipulated. For me, ma-
nipulation is the intentional influencing for your own benefit. It is something differ-
ent from influencing in the sense of a superior thing (see attitude).
So when I talk about an agile mindset in the following, I mean a person who has
sufficient maturity for self-organization and cultural change.
Beyond technical and methodological competencies, the following strength
profile is thus created purely at the personality level:
• He/she should be able to take into account the context and framework.
• He/she should be able to look at a situation from different angles and also be
able to judge those that concern his/her field of expertise.
• He/she should have an own attitude (which is more than just a opinion he/she
has read somewhere and has adopted), he/she should be able to take a stand.
• He/she must be able to develop themselves and really want feedback.
• He/she should cooperate, that is, be able to work closely with others.
• He/she should be open to others and new perspectives and alternative truths.
• He/she must be able to keep rules, adapt them and break them with good reason.
• He/she should have a relaxed relationship with authority and question things no
matter who they come from.
• He/she should have and show a respectful relationship with other people.
This catalogue describes an E6 after Jane Loevinger, but brings further features
that go beyond that. The “relaxed relationship to authority” is partly also content
and not only structure of this or other levels. But I think it is important, because
only someone who questions things can develop himself, others and also new
ideas. Authority here is broad. Persons in authority are not only managers at higher
levels, they can also be experts. Everyone should define authority for himself once.
And if you are a personnel decision-maker, you question what an applicant has in
mind, such as: “In what situations does authority show itself and how do you deal
with it?” There can be a negative and positive understanding. And a relaxed rela-
tionship must also have nothing to do with disrespect.
Which once again makes it clear that only when there is agreement among dia-
logue partners on what exactly is being discussed, one can have a more concrete
exchange. By the way, the best way to find out what others really think is to let
them associate freely and only give them terms or beginnings of sentences, such as
“authority ...”.
2.3.8 Assessing Ego-Development
But how do we recognize ego development? We can look at successful company

founders and public figures and estimate their ego development level on the basis
of interviews and self-statements. This trains the own view. However, it must be
clear that ghostwriters can write texts and websites, interviews and statements and
thus distort them.
One indication of later development, for example, is that people understand
themselves as a process. They recognize and describe that they used to think differ-
ently than today. They stand by their own mistakes. They involve many different
aspects. They not only see their own company, but also place it in a social context.
They show an attitude that deviates from the usual conventions or sets new stan-
dards. They see contradictions and do not believe they can solve them.
Let’s read two quotes from an interview by Mark Zuckerberg in 2017:
And I am inspired by history where humanity has gone through these similar shifts,
where we first started building cities – and when we first started building nations with
the cities we had – we had to build certain social infrastructure to bring everyone to-
gether so we could do more together than individually. Now I think we are in a time
like that today, and that's the part that I just want to make sure Facebook plays its part
in helping bring people together in that way.
(…)
So, my point with this letter isn't to solve all the problems, to set out all the different
issues, it is to say hey, if we are going to come together as a global community, one of
the things we need is the social infrastructure to do that, we also need the economic
infrastructure to give everyone an opportunity and I think there are places that
Facebook can contribute there [15].
The lines show a reference to the larger context and in any case their own stan-
dards. Zuckerberg places Facebook in a historical context and then expresses a
vision that he associates with Facebook. At the same time, he recognizes contra-
dictions and leaves them as they are. An attitude is clearly recognizable. I would
assign Zuckerberg to levels E6 to E7 on the basis of this text. It is a self-contained

argumentation, the idea is not questioned. I’m sure this isn’t the place either. It is
quite possible that Zuckerberg is much more post-conventional in other places. I
have chosen this example because it shows visionary thinking within conven-
tional boundaries.There is a difficulty in reading the level from texts anyway.
Speeches can reflect the level of the speech writer, books those of the ghost writer
and interviews and reports the ego development of the author or editor. In the
case of translated texts, there are also possible falsifications caused by the trans-
lations.
In contrast to Zuckerberg, the judge and author Sonia Sotomayor [16] seems to
be more at home in post-conventional thinking to me.
Here is an excerpt from an interview:
Oh, yeah, that's what you kept hearing. In America we have a very puritanical attitude
towards ourselves and our lives for good reasons. We expect people to work hard,
control their urges and do the right thing. It's the American way of life. People believe
that an addiction like alcoholism is just a matter of lack of self-control. In reality, the
dynamics of such dependencies are very complex. I have lived in this world, and I
know that there are drug dealers who are only in it for the money. Until you are ar-
rested, you earn much more money than you could hope to earn from any honest
work. The public schools in these neighbourhoods never prepared people for a job
that would have paid more than the minimum wage. The attraction of a job for which
one is well paid is a tremendous temptation [17].
The sentence “In truth, the dynamics of such dependencies are very complex”
shows how Sonia Sotomayor questions social conventions that she had previously
recognized. The fact that she has already developed her own principles in this re-
gard can be deduced from the formulation “in truth”. She thus contrasts the knowl-
edge about the convention with its own conclusion. In phase E8, you recognize
constructs, that is, interpretation schemes of yourself and others. One tries to ap-
proach a topic from the side of knowledge. What is really undeniably there, what
exists if you put constructs aside?Those who think this way may not build up a
Facebook, but they can contribute more effectively to solving complex overarching
problems because they include many aspects, but can also evaluate and take a clear
position. One can also break away from one’s own social or cultural group and thus
adopt a helicopter perspective.
The WUST (Washington University Sentence Completion Test) by Jane
Loevinger is designed in such a way that 36 sentence stems have to be completed.
These are the beginnings of sentences that characterize the conventions in all cul-
tures, although in different ways, for example “One man ...”. Someone with con-
ventional thinking would simply complete these sentence beginnings. It would
become apparent that he or she has a certain idea. Someone with post-conventional
thinking would bring in his own colouring here, his interpretation would include
various aspects. Once again, it is not about content, but always about the structure
of the answer.
This technique can also be used to explore the understanding of agility and
leadership. Just pretend:
• agile
• leadership
Answers could show the logic of thinking and possibly also give an idea of ego
development.
The answer “agility ... is necessary today” simply expresses less than “agility ...
a fashionable term, what is it?” – even if the answers are similarly short. The first
answer is much more closed than the second. But of course one cannot conclude
from this to general thinking!
“Value clusters” can be identified in the answers. For example, some managers
respond from a more collegial cooperation perspective, others with a goal attain-
ment perspective. Structurally, however, this is the same approach – one or the
other is “more correct”. In the post-conventional understanding, various possibili-
ties are illustrated. Someone would be able to combine, for example, cooperation
and individual authority or teamwork and the promotion of individuality – in a way
that does not state the As-Well-As as a new dogma. And that’s a typical trap one
can be taken by. Just because someone sees two sides of a coin and accepts it as a
principle, it does not imply that he lives it himself. Much more important: Can
someone derive actions from his knowledge that are not based on imitation?
cc For HR professionals, the good old STAR interview technique can be

helpful in tracking down ego development: Have applicants describe
situation, task, action and results. From this it quickly becomes clear
whether a unit consists of thinking and acting. It is also very helpful to
simply have three concrete experiences described, which a person
should arbitrarily pick out from his or her CV. The selection alone makes
the meaning clear. Someone at a later stage of Ego-Development is
more likely to select learnings, describe turning points and thereby em-
phasize the process view of themselves. Someone in earlier stages will
be more likely to want to present themselves well and highlight the
things they think the other person wants to hear. This means that the
attention is more on the desire to please and less on the question of

what I myself want to achieve. But this is only an indication; it can, but
need not have anything to do with ego development.
2.3.9 Are “Later” Developed Ones Better?
In the further training for Ego-Development with Thomas Binder we learned to

speak of “later” developed people, not of “higher” developed people. This rec-
ommendation ultimately also shows the risk of this model: it is a bit like IQ, that
is, the intelligence quotient. Most people would rather have “more” IQ points,
and most people strive for higher (later) ego development – especially managers.
But a high IQ is also not needed for all tasks. And so it is with the development
of the ego.
So is “later” better? We have already seen that people with post-conventional
thinking are a good choice for change processes, if they have the appropriate skills.
And no, you don’t need this kind of thinking in the switchboard – rule orientation
(E5) or/and we-thinking (E4) are usually completely sufficient. But then do not try
to lead the switchboard into self-organization or please entrust an E6 with this task
who can take the others with him.
Robert Kegan is of the opinion that through more ego development the world
would also become better. There is certainly something to be said for this, because
later developed people act more morally. There are no studies on how
Ego-Development is distributed in prisons, but it is likely to be generally lower
there, as long as it is not about political prisoners.
Politics in general. It is precisely in this environment that there is a need for
people with a mindset that is oriented towards the big picture and places the well-
being of others above its own. This would therefore require even more “later” de-
velopers than in the economy. The challenge is often their complexity. Barack
Obama has shown well that you can reach many people, even if your own thinking
is complex. It is a matter of communication.
So the answer to the question? Yes and no. For the future yes, for coping with
the present it is helpful to still have enough conventional thinkers. We should also
bear in mind that conventions are becoming more and more widespread. The more
life models there are, the broader conventional thinking becomes. This means that
within the conventional phases there is a higher diversity, but this does not increase
the proportion of post-conventional logic.
In all this, we must not forget that the environment also shapes people. If we
create an environment that promotes self-determination and the assumption of re-
sponsibility, we also give people the framework for their growth in the effective
phase or E6.
2.3.10 My Model of “Mode”
The Loevinger model has three disadvantages: It is complex and in places compli-
cated. The level designations sound unattractive and discriminatory to some ears.
It gives the impression that higher, better, further, is generally desirable. The third
disadvantage is the steps themselves. These seem to be delimited, not sufficiently
fluid. And of course the transitions are not as abrupt as the level indicates. Robert
Kegan has already released the steps from their rigidity by transferring them into
phases and a spiral. Yes, the transition is smooth, of course! Nobody wakes up in
the morning and is somewhere else.
I have simplified the Loevinger model, see Fig. 2.3. I am talking about phases
and modes. With me there are no people who are “E”, but people who are in a phase
or acting out of a mode in this or that situation. A further simplification are my
designations. I call the modes Ego (E3), We (E4), Right (E5), Effective (E6),
Flexible (E7) and Flexible-Plus (E8 or higher). In the drawing (see Fig. 2.3) you
can see verbs at the respective phases. These are specific. In later phases, however,
the earlier ones are always integrated, more or less well. This means that even a
person in the effective phase can assert himself, only in a different way that is more
in line with his standards. In the right phase, you would be more oriented towards
your knowledge. These transitions are to be seen as smooth and please never be
strict.
Fig. 2.3 Ego modes

I first presented this system in my book “Hört auf zu coachen” (“Stop coach-
ing”) [18]. I have asserted that it is much easier to accept than the Loevinger steps.
It simply indicates development directions more easily: The respective next phase
provides the central target concept if the current mindset is not sufficient for the
solution of the tasks or the assumption of responsibility: The ego must come to the
We, the We to the Right, the Right to the Effective, the Effective to Flexible.
Please be aware: I have not developed my own system, I have only renamed
existing ones! My goal was to better communicate something that I think is very
important. The Loevinger model can be very helpful in redesigning leadership and
in selecting and developing the right people for change processes.
2.3.11 Detailed Description of the Stages
Four aspects characterize each level. Character describes how a stage shows itself.
The character of E3 – that’s the ego phase for me – is described by his impulses,
which he can suppress in order to achieve his goals. The character of E4 (in my
case We-phase) is characterized by the desire for belonging, that of E5 (in my case
Right-phase) by individuality in the group, that of E6 (in my case Effective-phase)
by own value standards in the context of society. E7 (in my case Flexibel-Phase)
updates and makes its own standards more flexible by catching up with and incor-
porating the perspectives of others, E8 (Flexibel-Plus) can develop and represent a
principle-oriented attitude of its own and no longer oriented towards social conven-
tions. You can imagine that such people are endangered in totalitarian states ... But
the attitude does not necessarily have to refer to the political. Content is, once
again, irrelevant here. But the probability for thoughts that relate to society and our
existence as a whole is increasing.
The second aspect is the Focus of consciousness, so the question is, “What am
I focusing my attention on?” The person in the ego phase focuses his attention on
satisfying his own needs, the person in the we phase concentrates on behaviour and
the observance of norms. Someone in the Right Phase wants to develop his own
character and someone in the Effective Phase wants to live according to his values,
while someone in the Flexible Phase also wants to understand and integrate the
values of others. If Flexibel-Plus (E8 and more) is achieved, this person often con-
structs original own thoughts and ideas.
The third aspect is the interpersonal style. In the ego phase, someone is not
with the others at all, but with himself. In the we-phase he is with others (with
whatever group; it can also be an outside group) and accepts their rules, norms and
values as his own. His communication is often more of a monologue than a dia-
logue. In the we-mode, people hardly ask questions about needs, but rather about
whether something is done, for example. They do not question at all or hardly at all.
In the we-mode someone sees mainly behaviour, but not motives. A person cannot
deal with criticism in the we-mode, he does not criticize and does not want to be
criticized. And if he/she does, it stays on the surface and never goes deep.
In the right-mode, a person can enter into dialogue with others, but in doing
so, he has assumptions that are based on something and oriented towards a truth.
He divides into “right” and “wrong”, which is also reflected in the language, for
example through many “but” constructions. In the right-mode, it is difficult for
a person to let two truths coexist. Criticism is a necessary evil for people in
right-mode, they may accept what they feel is constructive or professionally
justified.
In effective-mode, a person can have fruitful dialogues with different people
and is able to reach consensus. He is also able to combine two truths, but still
has ideas about how something should be in his world. Motivations and other
perspectives begin to interest. The language contains more questions. In effec-
tive-mode, people begin to appreciate critical feedback, even though it can still
unsettle them.
The fourth aspect is the Action logic “Why am I doing something?” In the ego-
phase a person wants to achieve something for himself, in the we-phase also for
others. The ego-phase is more about taking advantage of the closer family or im-
mediate allies. Ego can also “disembark”. A person in the we-phase is unlikely to
do this within his peer group, because his ambition is to belong, not to assert him-
self. And if he pushes through something, it’s for the interests of the group. Being
loyal is what he identifies with. An individual in the right-mode wants to set him-
self apart but belong. Effective people, on the other hand, want to realize their own
values within their group and beyond, while flexible people want to do the same,
but transform and change a little more. That’s why flexible people often ask con-
spicuously many questions and like to explore. It is possible, however, that they do
not yet have a superior attitude of their own or that they need longer to form one.
Often they are looking for something right between all the possibilities. This is dif-
ferent with flexibel-plus, because these people have again developed new, post-
conventional standards or are striving to do so. They are therefore clearer, although
this is not always immediately apparent, because they may wait longer and not go
public with everything.
The effective-mode can be seen as the target phase of Western society, the we-
phase is the target phase of some collectivist peoples. This is something you should
always bear in mind when dealing with intercultural teams – in addition to all the
other aspects that diversity entails. In which phase someone is predominantly in is

possibly less visible, because someone, culturally shaped, wants to show the result-
ing thinking less.
In the effective-mode, the person has a fully developed identity of their own
with their own values and goals. He sees and pursues long-term goals and is also
able to shape the process towards them. This is different from the right phase,
where exactly this is difficult. People in the right phase tend to have difficulty in
keeping short, medium and long-term goals in view at the same time.
In the effective-mode, people can take up different positions that are reflected in
the social context.
At each level people can show contradictory attitudes, but until the effective-
phase these are often depicted in the often broad framework of social thinking,
ergo conventional. This does not mean at all that all effective ones are conven-
tional in their behaviour and in their external effect. A “punk” who submits to the
rules of his group may be unconventional on the outside, but in Jane Loevinger’s
sense he is in the we-phase, in case this is more than a snapshot, namely thought
and behavioral structure. A sustainability advocate may go to work in Birkenstock
shoes – breaking the code of his conservative employer – but he may still be in the
we-phase because he follows the rules of his in-group. He can also be in the right-
phase, provided that he identifies with sustainability, or in the effective-phase, if
he absolutely wants to realize sustainability in the larger context and as his own
life vision. Many things can be conventional. Postconventional means that some-
one can rise above conventional and unconventional assumptions and look at them
in a new light.
cc Someone who upholds agile methods like Scrum can do this from a we-
phase perspective and will then mainly focus on the rules. He can do
this from the perspective of the right-phase and will then also acknowl-
edge individual interpretations and prefer a personal style. From the
perspective of the effective phase, he will bring in his own idea of the
contribution that agile work also makes to the context (e.g. to promote
innovation). With the imprint from the flexible phase, he will be more
concerned with allowing different concepts. And guided by flexibel-
plus, he will take what he thinks makes sense, but align everything with
overriding principles. He thus actively shapes truth and reality for oth-
ers as well. In doing so, he will be able to accept it as provisional and less
than set in stone.
Table 2.3 Ego-development according to four characteristics

Focus of Interpersonal
Character consciousness style Logic of action
Ego-mode (E3) Selfish Me and my Monologue, Opportunism
needs sending
We-mode (E4) Adapted Behaviour of Monologue, Diplomacy
the group exchanging
Right-mode Self-confident I as an Dialogue, Optimization
(E5) individual part informing
of the group within limits
Effective-mode Self-actualizing Me with my Dialogue, Achievement of
(E6) own ideas further objectives (also
stretched, self-realization)
motivating
Flexible-mode Flexible The context and Open dialogue Integration
(E7) the other with many, (exploring,
perspectives connecting taking along,
involving)
Flexible-plus- Self updating The big picture Open dialogue Transformation
mode (E8) and the sense of with many,
all formative
Table 2.3 shows the different aspects that apply to the stages, in reference to
Thomas Binder [8].
2.3.11.1 Ego-Mode: Being Impulsive

The ego mode in adulthood is something like manifested puberty. In it people are
very close to their own impulses, perhaps the transition to narcissism is fluid.
Nevertheless, people in the ego phase are aware that they must not do everything.
But it is not that they have internalized the rules of their group for themselves and
submit to them. They do it rather to have an advantage or to benefit the immedi-
ate environment. Some are therefore very good at getting things done for them-
selves or even setting up companies or even criminal organizations. The convic-
tion to be in the right will always be there, despite all the charm and even high
eloquence – even if you can suppress it temporarily for your own advantage. The
thinking is rather short-term and geared towards survival. It’s only fair to say
you’re next to yourself. The fewer we elements have formed, the more noticeable
this is. However, we must not forget that the transitions are fluid. Most people in
the ego-phase will already have a certain we-thinking – only it has not yet taken
over the “helm”.
2.3.11.2 We-Mode: Taking Part

If we look around a company, we are more likely to find people in the we-mode in
an environment that does not require much initiative, such as the office or customer
service. But be careful, we could easily be wrong. It could be quite different.
People in this phase can fully adopt the perspectives of others. They tend to ask
“How does it work?” and “What do I have to do?” rather than to investigate or even
design something themselves.
They need relationships not only for their own ego. They rely heavily on the
others. Therefore, they find it difficult to develop answers and ideas for their own
life and work. They are not very creative, in the sense of recreating. Even if they
work as designers, they will be more likely to orient themselves to what is trendy
rather than creating it from scratch.
They easily adopt a group opinion – “that’s the way it is” – which they consider
their own. It is therefore difficult for them to take their own position, even if they
have a strong opinion of their own and can be an absolute alpha animal – on closer
listening it is the opinion of others, their group, family, the culture they live in. Just
produced more loudly.
Questions
You are in demand – think about it: Do you have these people in your company?
How do you recognize them? What behaviour do you observe? And which be-
haviour are you NOT observing? What aspect of the we-phase do you observe
in yourself? When is this helpful and when not? What is the action logic of the
subsystem these people are in, e.g. the logic of the team and its leader? It is
obvious that you also act in this mode sometimes. In what situations?
Nor do they succeed in developing completely new ideas that are not already in
their environment. For them, authorities are opinion leaders in their group or peo-
ple with formal leadership power. They hardly question authority. In an agile con-
text they take role concepts and rules for granted. It will be harder for them to think
outside the box.
Their perspectives are directed towards themselves and the immediate other, for
example towards their partner, boss or colleague. They feel responsible for acting
in the interest of the group. They assume that there is a truth and that things have to
be done anyway. A person in the we-mode reaches their limits when he or she has
to represent a really own opinion – also towards others.
But that is exactly the line of development.
cc Personnel development in the we-phase: If you are an executive or per-

sonnel manager, promote the view on your own characteristics. Appro-
priate measures for these people are those that emphasize the differ-
ences: I’m like this, and you’re different. These can be strength
workshops or trainings that cluster different types of people. “I’m a red
and you’re a blue” is often clichéd for a later phase, but here it fits well.
The art for the presenter is to make it clear that this is not set in stone. If
you are introverted, you can also be extroverted. The message for the
we-mode should continue to be that development is always possible.
And that includes the development of a completely different logic of
thinking and acting.
2.3.11.3 Right-Modee: I-Am
In companies you will find these people more often in specialist departments,
but also quite often in management, because they can work their way up dili-
gently. Let your eyes and thoughts wander and look for them in your surround-
ings. They tend to be managers who have difficulties seeing longer time hori-
zons. They tend to search simple solutions. They love everything which easily
can be rolled-out.
These people are capable of developing their own standards. They show respect
for others and also accept their experiences. In this phase people accept authority
if it is characterized by competence. But beware if his own strengths are not seen
or he does not recognize them for himself! This raises general questions and self-
doubt. In this mode people do not like to reflect deeply about themselves.
The perspectives are directed towards one’s own area and the topics depicted in
its context. The big picture is less interesting, less in view. This does not mean that
these people cannot be very committed. However, they find it more difficult to look
beyond their own field of expertise or to deviate from previous ideas. Although
they like to learn, they are less interested in self-development and deep reflection.
They tend to seek quick help and prefer clear rules and instructions. They love
methods and tools that help them to do something “right”.
Questions
haviour are you NOT observing? What aspect of the right-phase do you recog-
nize in yourself? When is this helpful and when not? What is the action logic of
the subsystem these people are in, e.g. the logic of the team and its leader? What
is the logic of the whole system? What ist the career logic? It is obvious that you
also act in this mode sometimes. In what situations?
He feels responsible for what defines his standards, be it a specific subject or qual-
ity or even an approach and a life model. He is not very open to other explanations
or approaches if these fundamentally question his assumption. His assumption is
that he represents the “right thing”. In return, he likes to learn – but not to question
himself fundamentally.
cc Human resources development in the right-phase: If you are a manager

or personnel manager, promote a view of your own needs. What would
I do if...? The challenge for people in the right-phase is to free them-
selves from expert knowledge or their close ties to convictions (which
can also be irrational and emotional like “I always listen to my gut”),
their own and those of others they follow – such as book knowledge or
standardized procedures.
Appropriate measures for these people are those that emphasize the
focus on their own needs: What do I perceive in me? How do I feel? How
do I behave? How do I not behave? Working with motives (needs) can be
helpful, because it directs the view back to what is going on in me and
others. They broaden the view on strengths, which was helpful in the
previous phase. It can also be helpful to look at your own changes and
the changes of others. If you are dealing with a leader in the right-phase,
encourage and demand reflection. In right-mode people will tend to
look for ready-made grids and solutions. After that you will also choose
your training. You could confront them with this pattern of their own.
Some learn and learn and think that this makes them better. But basi-
cally this only keeps them stuck. If you want to retain competent manag-
ers, help them to develop into the effective-phase. This should be ac-
companied by individual measures such as development-related
coaching and group formats. As a group format, the executive reflection
is ideal. It is important that several people do not “stew” in the same juice
in the same phase, which is why a temporary external moderation is
helpful, or internal moderation by people with at least effective-thinking.
However, it is very possible that people in the right-phase reject

these formats; they do not like to expose themselves in groups. But
that’s exactly what would be good.
2.3.11.4 Effective-Mode: Achieving Targets

Most likely, you will see these people wherever independent work is required, as
well as in management positions, if the logic of thinking and acting in your com-
pany favours the inherent determination. They recognize them by the fact that they
have their own standards, which go beyond the professional, but they can also
recognize others. They are capable of dialogue and consensus in the best sense.
However, their limitation where it is essential to question fundamental values. If
you fundamentally question KPI thinking (KPIs are key performance indicators), a
business administrator in the effective-phase will tend to defend his previously reli-
able framework. Just as a cooperative effective manager who lives leadership as the
organization of cooperation of free people will be irritated if this model is ques-
tioned. Many in the effective-mode also believe in vocation and strive for self-
realization. The scales that are anchored in the effective-mode can be very different
and even contradictory.
However, people who have their focus in this mode can recognize, understand,
reflect, translate into action and evaluate their own values and standards.
Translating into action is very important to me here, because it is not self-evi-
dent – many people think something, can talk about it, but the translation into
action is missing. However, a phase only becomes apparent when there is an ac-
tive circuit, that is, when someone not only thinks and speaks, but also produces
actions on this basis. This is often confused, and very intellectual people can be
quite deceptive at this point.
Questions
You are in demand – think about it: Do you have these people in your com-
pany? How do you recognize them? What behaviour do you observe? And
which behaviour are you NOT observing? What aspect of the effective-phase
do you feel with yourself? When is this helpful and when not? What is the
action logic of the subsystem these people are in, e.g. the logic of the team and
its leader? What is the logic of the system? And what is your own logic? It is
obvious that you also act in this mode sometimes, maybe even often. In what
situations?
People in the effective-phase differentiate and integrate their standards of life and
behaviour usually with respect for other people and a great sense of responsibility.
The self-determined person who emerges in this phase likes to take responsibility
for others. For him, authorities are people who share his values. His perspectives
are broad; he also includes the context. His central conflict is his own standards,
which can become too much to handle, because he sees them as right and can
hardly and will hardly question them. This is how I see many people in the effective
phase who almost break down in their search for a vocation because they cannot
think “it works without”. It is similar with other issues that people think they need
to reach without fundamentally questioning this aspiration.
People with this mode like to evolve and are grateful for feedback that enables
them to become better. The perspective of this mode always includes the context.
In the effective-mode you can also see several contexts. The assumption of people
in this phase, however, is that they are on the right path with their standards, even
if they see and acknowledge other paths. Often the great sense of responsibility –
also for living, switching and managing according to one’s own ideas – stands in
the way. An effective-mode person reaches his limits when he has to develop fun-
damentally new thinking, for example in a change situation. At best, he realizes
that he needs sparring partners here.
Perhaps the following questions will help to resolve overly fixed ideas:
• Is this true?
• Can you know with absolute certainty that this is true?
• How would your life be without this thought?
cc Personnel development in the effective phase: If you are a manager or

HR manager, you promote the view of other perspectives and contrast-
ing approaches. In this phase, it is no longer necessarily a matter of fur-
ther development, because in effective-mode, people have found
themselves. It is a decision whether they want to go beyond the limits
of conventionality, because there they also lose a piece of their previous
security. The world is becoming more complex, more multilayered. This
can be reflected openly with people in this phase. For example, a com-
mercial director does not necessarily have to develop flexible thinking,
but a CEO who is restructuring a company or a coach who helps people
to develop themselves. So you should look at the tasks of the person
you are dealing with. And involve the people themselves, of course.
The challenge for people in the effective-phase is to engage in fun-
damentally different thinking. Of course there is also a long phase of
transition from one phase to another. People at the beginning of the
effective-phase will still be very happy and often look for best practice
and guidance. People at the end of the effective-phase explore more,

ask more questions, but will still have a tendency to relate these things
to something they know. In flexible-mode, something fundamentally
new can rather be created. Best practice is then still good, but it is easier
to learn from others without immediately rejecting (Delete) or transfer-
ring (Enter) everything, which would be more typical for earlier phases.
Appropriate measures for these people are those that promote an
outward view, external stimulation, new thoughts. It can be important
to learn to let go, to trust that others can reach the goal on their own or
that goals can be flexible.
Individual coaching and group reflection are also helpful here. In
this phase, the different proportions that drive people, even when it
comes to making decisions, can be made clear with partial work, for
example with the “model of the inner team” according to Friedemann
Schulz von Thun, which is taught in almost every coaching training. In
doing so, one works with personality parts within oneself.
The moderator here should be someone in a later phase – this ap-
plies in general to moderations of such processes.
2.3.11.5 Flexible-Phase: Questioning and Bringing Together

Take a mental tour through your teams and departments: Where do people sit who
have original and unusual ideas, who see many aspects, often just those that others
do not recognize? Where do you see people who can involve others and get along
with a lot of different people? People who take a funnel-shaped approach when
they make decisions that affect different people: first collecting information, then
sorting and finally sharpening it.
It may also be that you work in a company where such behaviour is undesirable,
which is why these people do not show themselves at all.
Questions
haviour are you NOT observing? Do you feel an aspect of the flexible-phase in
yourself? Would it be helpful for your work to promote and bring it to bloom?
Or is it important that you train your intuition to recognize these people? What
is the action logic of the subsystem in which you see persons with that logic?
What happens with their ideas? Are they integrated? Do they play an appropri-
ate role?
These people have partly understood that everything is a question of perspective.

Also the attitude they had before. They see a senselessness in trying to live perfect
self-determination and understand different realities. Therefore, they can under-
stand different perspectives very well and also grasp different thinking. They also
constantly rethink themselves. It may be noticeable that they never claim to have
always been one way or the other, but that they see themselves as a process. Process
thinking is also evident elsewhere, for example in the development of products or
experiments. It is easier to deviate from the desire for a finished status or a final
destination.
They have realized how much they are a product of our contexts and relation-
ships. They can therefore take on a variety of roles and cope with different levels of
complexity. They can also adapt to different people and may seem almost like a
chameleon because they can also behave differently. Overall, they have a large
behavioural repertoire.
Authorities are usually not of great importance to them, at least not in a hierar-
chical sense, because they are interested in people. They can take on a wide variety
of perspectives and see not only the context, but more and more aspects that play
into it. Most likely there is a certain spirituality. The topic of meaning is likely to
play a role and be interpreted more holistically than in earlier phases. In other
words, no longer just as a sense of bringing in one’s own strengths, producing eco-
logical products (or representing “everything but environmentally harmful”) or
realizing one’s own potential, even going beyond that.
cc Personnel development in the flexible-phase: People in this phase are

ideal coaches and facilitators, as long as their personal competencies
are linked to Ego-Development. If they are to be developed more into
higher management positions, it is important to promote their clarity.
For all their ability to facilitate collaboration, where is their vision? As
with people in the effective-phase, development into the next phase is
no longer necessarily a goal, but rather to use and further develop all
the power and possibilities of this phase.
2.3.11.6 Flexible-Plus-Mode: Shaping and Changing

Now my request for a ramble becomes more difficult, because statistically speak-
ing, hardly any flexibel-plus people are likely to work in your company. Therefore,
extend your mental journey. Remember my example from Sonia Sotomayor (page
62) or Barack Obama – these could be people with a flexible-plus Mindset. This
differs from flexible thinking in that it offers greater clarity, a process view, the
connection of many aspects and a complexity view. These people tend to have
more “influencer” behavior, they are more likely to take others with them through
their new thoughts. This makes them better suited as visionaries, but they are also
valuable as consultants – if consulting is not based on strict methods and proce-
dures, they like that less. The organizational consultant Edgar H. Schein is striving
with his approaches, such as “Humble Consulting” [19], very much in this more
open direction.
While personnel consultants and coaches can operate quite well from a flexible
perspective, organizational consultants and strategists as well as change managers
benefit greatly from flexible-plus thinking. But of course all this does not apply in
general and for everyone in this phase, because Ego-Development is only one
building block of many. It moderates the way other abilities and personality traits
appear, but it does not create them.
Questions
haviour are you NOT observing? Do you feel an aspect of the flexible-plus
phase in yourself? Would it be helpful for your work to promote and bring it to
bloom? Or is it important to train your intuition to recognize these people bet-
ter? What is the action logic of the subsystem in which you see persons with that
logic? What happens with their ideas? Are they integrated? Do they play an
appropriate role?
People in flexibel-plus see their responsibility in living principles that are beyond
rules or legislation, but which form guidelines for them. They no longer simply
accept principles, but can also develop and produce them. Their attitude is there-
fore clear, as humans they are often unusual.
Their complexity can lead to the fact that they are no longer understood by oth-
ers, at least not in all facets. Their generalizing principles can develop the power to
put themselves above things, they thus form superior value standards. People in
flexible-plus-mode are therefore better suited than others to exert influence and
shape ideas. As they often do not have to be in the foreground and have to domi-
nate, they are good at organizing cooperation. They will probably not be the ones
who insist on the authorship of an idea, but rather those who believe that ideas ul-
timately need several people to develop.
The associated helicopter thinking has advantages for the company manage-
ment. In his book, Thomas Binder [8] mentions studies that prove that post-
conventionality is advantageous in other fields:
• Managers at later stages of development have greater competence in strategy

and personnel management and also display more effective decision-making
behaviour.
• In general, higher Ego-Development enables a better understanding of emo-
tions, which is positive in consulting and coaching, for example.
• Post-conventional ego development ensures a more mature expression of mo-
tives. Power, for example, is understood as influencing to improve things – not
as domination.
• Post-conventional ego development creates a more complex self-image and thus
a higher self- and foreign development ability.
Systems theory according to Niklas Luhmann, constructivism, Theory U according

to Claus Otto Scharmer – all these are products of post-conventional thinking. But
it is only in post-conventional thinking that these are recognized as a way of under-
standing and explaining the world, rather than as the ultimate truth and method of
application.
cc Personnel development in the flexible-plus-phase: People in this phase

are ideal senior executives and inspiring visionaries. Like everyone else,
they too have obstructive “shadows”, perhaps not yet fully in their
power, could communicate more clearly, be more stirring, perhaps eas-
ier. I observe this with many influencers, who often have a scientific
background. They obviously think in terms of flexible or flexible-plus,
but in places they lose themselves in the complexity of their and other
models. Important now are reflection and stimulation – – and challeng-
ing tasks. These people are unlikely to stay in a company if they always
reach their limits or cannot develop themselves any further. They can
also be trained to deal with people in earlier phases, because reaching
and taking them with you is now the real art.
2.3.12 Development Interview
What stage of development someone is at can be measured by various key issues,

above all authority, conflict, perspectives, responsibility and basic assumptions
(about the world, life, meaning, etc.)? In order to assess the mindset of a person –
be it an applicant or an employee – I recommend that HR managers and executives
conduct development-related interviews.
The most important aspect is the perspective you can take yourself. You can
only see something that you know yourself. Projections are common when inter-
viewers recognize maturity too early because they see something of themselves in
the person opposite. This can lead to developmental optimism.
The so-called “SOI Interview” – “Subject-Object Interview“- by Robert Kegan
helps with the classification. It provides a scheme by which statements can be clas-
sified.
I have based the following table on the analysis sheet SOI by Robert Kegan
[20]. The brief descriptions of each of these mean what is meant by authority, con-
flict, perspectives, responsibility and assumptions. Pay attention to the structure,
not the content, when answering. When someone puts the authority of expertise at
the center, it is the same as if someone else follows the authority of a spiritual
guide. In both cases something happens “because of something”; there are no sep-
arate standards.
Practice first with family, friends and confidants. Read more in-depth literature
or visit my seminar on this topic (Psychology for Coaches, more information www.
svenja-hofert.de) or our training TeamsworksPLUS®, in which I take up this
topic).
Please note when using the interview formats:
• Whether personal development in this sense is understood as an organizational

issue is a question of basic assumptions and principles. Personnel development
has so far had a different orientation, referring to the development of profes-
sional, methodological and personal-social competences. If you go further, it
becomes more and more personal: The real obstacles to development of people
often lie deep in the family history. This cannot be “schooled”, it touches the
borderline to therapy and must be holistic, that is, never just job-related. Robert
Kegan describes the Deliberately Developmental Organizations in his latest
book with Lisa Lahey [20]. What’s happening is very personal. You have to
want it and consider the consequences.
• Define what kind of thinking a particular task requires.
• Development affects many areas of life. If you “help” a manager to think dif-
ferently, this can also destabilize him or her in other areas of life, since terrain
previously believed to be safe can be lost. This may have consequences:
Someone who sees other perspectives for the first time, for example, also de-
velops away from his partner, so that a marriage is in danger. Friendships can
also break up when one develops. Employees can resign ... The side effect can
also be that someone notices that he no longer identifies with his task. This
must be addressed as a general risk and this is what an employee (coachee)

must want.
• If you make working hypotheses about a phase someone is in, keep them only
for one day. Then think again afterwards. Look for evidence to refute you, never
for confirmation.
• You have to be able to catch whatever you push. At the slightest hint of doubt,
leave it and use the following for yourself.
How do you proceed? Explain the model and the reason why you use it: “I want to
better understand your logic of thought and action. This can help us to deploy you
more purposefully than before” would be a possible moderation.
Questions that you can then ask:
• What do you understand by authority? Who is an authority for you and why?
• Describe a conflict that has moved you deeply.
• If you could, how and according to which criteria would you reorganize the
coexistence of people?
• What is responsibility for you?
• What is truth for you?
• What is sense for you?
Take notes of the conversation and examine the answers according to the phase-
specific understanding of authority, conflict, perspectives, responsibility, basic as-
sumptions. You can also have it assigned yourself if you introduce the model be-
forehand, for example in a workshop. Then use the following analysis sheet for
partner interviews.
The analysis sheet (Table 2.4) is based on Robert Kegan, but expanded.
In Tables 2.5 and 2.6 you will find example answers which I have constructed
myself.
2.3.13 Interventions for Different Stages of Development
For many years I intuitively did something right: I always proceeded differently. I
once worked with the “inner team” according to Friedemann Schulz von Thun and
sometimes held philosophical discussions. I left out target agreements and some-
times I got out more the social worker, sometimes more the motivator and then
again the consultant.
Table 2.4 Analysis sheet for a conversation

What is a structural
indication (no content!)? What is the probable mode? So,
What other phase could it we-mode. Right-mode.
Key topics be? Effective-mode. Flexible-mode.
Dealing with authority
Conflict management
Taking perspectives
(group, context, situation,
society)
Responsibility (towards
me, the others, society)
Basic assumptions (about
the world, life, people ...)
Table 2.5 Example 1 for the analysis of a conversation

Example answers 1
We-phase. Right-phase.
Effective-phase. Flexible-phase.
What is a structural indication What other phase could it be? What is
Key topics (no content!)? the probable phase?
Authority The authority has the person Right-phase, because only one
with the greatest expertise possibility is allowed.
We-phase, provided that rules are
emphasized and focused on behavior
in the further course of the project.
Any other phase, provided that in the
following, for example, the following
is put into perspective
Conflict The colleague simply deleted a We-phase, because behaviour is the
mail from me focus and rule violation.
Any other phase, if needs, motivations
and contextual aspects are expressed
in the following
Prospects She ignores me We phase, because I look at the other
person without integrating his
perspective.
Any other phase, if the situation,
context, motivation are expressed in
the following
(continued)
Table 2.5 (continued)

Example answers 1
We-phase. Right-phase.
Effective-phase. Flexible-phase.
What is a structural indication What other phase could it be? What is
Key topics (no content!)? the probable phase?
Responsibility She just put me to work. We-phase, because there is no line
around you drawn. Behaviour is
evaluated, responsibility for the group
is assumed.
Any other phase, if the situation,
context, motivation are expressed in
the following
Basic You have to provide for your We-phase, because there is only this
assumptions family assumption and it is absolute
Table 2.6 Example 2 for the analysis of a conversation

Example answers 2
We-phase. Right-phase. Effective-phase. What other phase
Flexible-phase. What is a structural indication (no could it be? What is
Key topics content!)? the probable phase?
Authority For me there are no authorities in this sense, I From effective-
respect and like people who have their own point phase
of view and visions
Conflict Sometimes I realize that things are just not Flexible-phase
compatible. It is then a challenge to make this
clear to those employees who absolutely want a
solution
Prospects One should ask different people about it. I would From effective-
also like to have someone who can take the phase
position of Advocatus Diaboli
Responsibility For me, social responsibility is absolutely central. From effective-
I include this in my thinking at all times. phase
Sometimes I reach my own limits when I have to
weigh up different interests
Basic If you ask me like that, happiness is the yardstick From effective-
assumptions for me. For me, the happy life of all people is in phase
the foreground. That is what I want to work
towards with my work
But I was never quite sure whether all my intuition was right. The ego develop-
ment model has provided me with the theory for my practical behaviour. For that I
am grateful. I know it is the same for many people who discovered ego develop-
ment after many years of practical experience.
Each phase has its own themes and perspectives on itself. As a result, each
phase also has its own interventions that are helpful for development. I have
already described this in the respective sections focusing on personnel develop-
ment. For people in the effective-phase, for example, the formation of an inner
team can be helpful, because one becomes aware of the different parts that work
within one.
For a person in the right-phase it is helpful to become aware of one’s own needs,
that is, to promote perception: What do I feel when I am confronted with a situa-
tion?
As a suggestion, however, I would like to give you a small intervention table to
give you an idea of the different approaches. Please bear in mind that each level has
a huge variety of facets and that there is considerable potential for development
within each level. So it is not necessarily a matter of promoting people to a higher
level, but often only of strengthening them within “their” level.
As a manager and personnel developer, it is still your basic decision whether
you will actively “intervene” in this issue at all. It might be enough to be aware of
who you’re dealing with. The decision to develop people is very fundamental. I
have already written about Robert Kegan’s model of “DDOs” (Deliberately
Developmental Organizations) [20]. Through consistent feedback and permanent
self-reflection, people in DDOs develop further. This is a fundamental question –
do I see myself as a company in this obligation? Or do I only want to select the
right employees? I can’t make that decision for you. In my view, it is just as legiti-
mate to answer with “no” as with “yes”. However, it is possible that you have no
choice but to go for development, because digitalization is too much on your back.
And you see only one chance, because you cannot expel all your employees: to
develop them. And if we look at it that way: Adapting to business conditions is also
development – only subtly and less offensively.
Table 2.7 shows which approaches to coaching and consulting are useful in the
individual phases.
80
Table 2.7 Tools and methods for different development phases

Work individually Development To do (single AND
Level (Coaching) Groups intervention Tests group)
2
Ego-phase (E3) Leadership Clarify rules, Control, making DISG® Target agreement,
consulting promote adaptation aware that social agreeing rules,
rules apply control
We-phase (E4) Caring advice Learning new Encourage DISG® Agreement on
behaviour together self-esteem, work common rules, work
out your own with strengths,
character and exercise / training,
individuality, work simple coaching
with strengths approaches like
solution orientation
Right-phase (E5) Expert advice, Practice and role Demanding MBTI®motifs Agreement on rules
diagnosis and plays, action self-solving and short-term
solution, practice, learning competence, making goals, simple
role play needs conscious coaching approaches
such as solution
orientation,
transactional
analysis, inner team,
inner child (dogmas)
Effective-phase (E6) Business coaching, Bringing doubts Strengthen your own Motives in In addition to the
counseling about your own values, goals and dialectical view (I target work, also
point of view, positions, increase need the other side), vision work,
confronting context awareness, IE profile® Part work (inner
bring in external team), transactional
perspectives, get out analysis, inner team,
into other inner child (dogmas)
companies!
Basics of Developmental Psychology and Its Significance for the Mindset
Flexible-phase (E7) Sparring, associative Developing Sharpening the view IE profile® The more developed,
2.3
coaching, principles, reflection for different the less methods and

philosophical at a higher level perspectives and tools should be used,
dialogue (questions of broadening the more complex and
meaning) context view; philosophical and
strengthening psychological
overriding principles thoughts are
and the “own” in the welcome, work with
transition to E8 values, discussing
the question of
meaning
Stages of Ego Development
Flexible-plus-phase Sparring, Question the Development – See above

(E8) epistemological meaning of sth. support,
approaches strengthening of
communicative
competencies
(vision!). Coach of
this person must be
at this level or
higher
81
2.4 Spiral Dynamics
Ego-development shows on the individual level how the logic of thought and action
changes. On a higher level, Spiral Dynamics® providesmatching values. It de-
scribes a similar development at the level of companies, cultures and societies.
These too have an inner logic which they follow. So-called “memes”, the culture
variant of the genes, drive development.
The model goes back to Clare W. Graves [4], who was a fellow student of
Abraham Maslow. Clare W. Graves claims that humans can solve newly arising
existential problems in response to changing external stimuli. To this end, they
train new ways of thinking and behaving, which are socially anchored and becom-
ing more and more widespread. This is similar to ego development, which is also
ultimately promoted or slowed down by society. This is how progress is shown.
However, not only further development, but also regression is possible on the indi-
vidual levels in his model.
Christopher Cowan and Don Beck [21] were inspired by Clare W. Grave’s the-
ory and used it as a basis for their book “Spiral Dynamics”. They translated Clare
W. Graves complex model into a simple coloured spiral. The layers were thus
translated into colors, which greatly facilitated perception.
Both Clare W. Graves theory and Christopher Cowan and Don Beck’s model
influenced the American philosopher Ken Wilber, who developed his “Integral
Theory” from it [22]. Ken Wilber is known to a part of the coaching scene, he is
something like the intellectual-spiritual mastermind of the so-called integral scene.
Spiral dynamics is based on the assumption that humans have a complex, adap-
tive, context-dependent intelligence. According to this, human development cur-
rently runs through nine stages or levels, which refer to personality, groups, orga-
nizations and also societies. The levels reflect states of consciousness and value
systems. The model is different from Loevinger’s, not empirical.
Spiral dynamics is visualized in an upwardly open, colored spiral that reflects
this continuous development of the value system – on the personal level, but also
on the level of organizations and societies. This means that the development never
ends. Another thought is that it will always repeat itself – at a higher level than
before. Spiral Dynamics calls this first and second tier. People, societies, compa-
nies, cultures do not yet see in the first tier that they have to integrate “memes” of
different phases. In second tier, complexity increases. The yellow level of Spiral
Dynamics integrates all previous levels and redefines the first level on a higher
level. The yellow level resembles Jane Loevinger’s E7.
2.4 Spiral Dynamics 83
The red level is reminiscent of Jane Loevinger’s E3: the impulse leads the ac-
tion, the logic is that “the stronger one wins”. The blue level is reminiscent of a
combined E4 and E5: Here, affiliation and rules are the focus. The orange and
green levels represent the two sides of E6 (in each case in contrasting forms, once
the performance of the individual is emphasized, once the performance of the
team). E8 is most likely to be turquoise (or the “alchemist“for William Torbert
[11]). The author Frédéric Laloux, who with “Reinventing Organizations” [23]
wrote the anthem of the New Work movement, also refers to the model. Progressive
companies are “teal” with him.
The model becomes interesting when you think of it together with Ego-
Development and consider the differences in mindset and values. Thus the
Loevinger stages, with some differences, are reflected in it at first glance – the
“green” and “orange” phases basically reflect two orientations. One is more ego-
oriented, the other more we-oriented, but both are ultimately effective phases (E6).
On the other hand, differences become clear: people can pursue green and yellow
values with a thinking from the E4 and E5 phase, but will then handle them “abso-
lutely” to dogmatic.
Proposition: The Future Workplace Needs More Post-Conventional Thinking

In this chapter, I have explained Ego-Development, focusing on the model
of Jane Loevinger. This shows how human thought and action logic devel-
ops in a comprehensible regularity. It therefore establishes a direct link to
the mindset.
My thesis is that in the new and changed world of work, thinking in E6 is a
prerequisite and that people must develop in this direction if they are to work in
an organized way. I believe that post-conventional thinking is helpful in many
key positions and that the challenges of the future can be met more easily with
this thinking. Such thinking does not come about in two-day courses, but re-
quires a lot of patience. It can be substantially promoted by an open and reflec-
tive education system or by appropriate schools and universities. But companies
can also promote this thinking by focusing on reflection and long-term leader-
ship development – and by creating a framework for the acceptance of post-
conventional thinking.
In the next chapters I will talk more often about “flexible” and “agile” mind-
sets, and I mean people who have at least reached the flexible-phase.
2.5 Development-Related Management Interview
The earlier the development, the more people are looking for guidelines, the ques-
tions are more oriented towards “How do I do?” The later the development, the
sooner people will want to orientate and gather as much information as possible.
The willingness to take responsibility for oneself and others is greater. A person in
ego-mode acts according to their own discretion, in we-mode he ask what to do and
how. In the right-mode he wants to bring in his own ideas. In effective-mode, on the
other hand, the focus is on objectives. So someone would rather question what is to
be achieved. In the flexible-mode, people first make up their own mind and then
find approaches that suit the context and situation.
In the following you will find some exemplary questions that are specifically
related to leadership. This is a shortened version of a questionnaire I developed.
You can use these questionnaires in addition or instead of the interview on the fol-
lowing pages. It is more concrete and less fundamental, that is, more suitable for
the organizational context.
What’s Worth Fighting For? Describe a Conflict: What Did You Perceive?
How Did You Behave? How Would You Have Behaved If You Had Followed
Your Needs?
The earlier the development, the more likely it is that a conflict is associated with
victories and gains. The later the development, the sooner contradictions can be
accepted as sometimes irresolvable. For people in the ego-phase, conflicts are op-
portunities to win or lose. In the we-mode, the conflict is unpopular, especially in
one’s own group one prefers to sweep under the carpet. In right-mode, this behav-
iour may still exist, but content-related and factual arguments are more welcome.
Usually people in the right-phase do not like corporate policies, because they per-
ceive them as unobjective. In the effective-phase, the focus is on the goal and con-
flicts are primarily resolved constructively. In the flexible-phase conflicts are nec-
essary and important for further development. The aim should be to carry these out
respectfully, but without coming to a truth (solution) at any price. For example, it
is more a question of “finding the best solution we have at the moment”.
When Have You Ever Been Criticised? What Was That Situation? What
Brought This On for You? Do You Give Feedback Yourself? What Exactly
Does that Look Like? How Does It Make You Feel?
The earlier the development, the more criticism is shaken and avoided. This means
that even in an interview it is unlikely to be discussed.
2.5 Development-Related Management Interview 85
The later the development, the less criticism shakes, and the more it is seen as
an opportunity to gain new perspectives and learn more. In the ego-phase, criticism
is evaluated as a declaration of war. In the we-phase, criticism is disturbing because
it sends the signal “you are wrong”. In the right-phase, objective criticism is ac-
cepted if it comes from competent persons. In the effective-phase, people begin to
understand criticism as feedback and want to learn from it. In the flexible-phase
feedback is actively sought and critical feedback is reflected openly and without
shame. Justifications no longer exist or hardly exist at all. It’s easy to admit to hav-
ing made mistakes.
When Have You Ever Given Another Person Feedback, Critical or Praising?
How Often Do You Give Feedback? In What Situations Do You Give
Feedback?
The earlier the development, the sooner people will see and judge details and indi-
vidual aspects. Feedback is also a judgment. The later the development, the sooner
people will see the larger context and connect different aspects. In ego-mode, feed-
back is an end in itself (“Praise is useful to me”). In the we-mode, little feedback is
given – and if it is, it is more related to behaviour (“well done”). In the right-mode,
feedback is given mainly on content aspects and details. It can be seen here that
“This is the right way” or “This is the wrong way” is assumed.
In effective-mode, feedback is constructive and contextual. In flexible mode,
feedback is complex, open and characterized by the desire to help others.
When Did You Last Question Yourself? What Caused This? Are There
Things That You Would Fundamentally Question? What Are Your Basic
Assumptions About Life? How Do You Know That These Are Correct?
The earlier the development phase, the less self-reflective the person is, the later the
more self-reflective. Reflection will always be more psychological and focused on
the interaction with others. A person in the ego phase reflects little or nothing. A
person in the we-phase reflects on what makes him or her a part of the world and
his or her behaviour. A person in the right-phase also reflects on what he has to
learn to become “right”.
A person in the effective-phase reflects more complex, about life goals, mean-
ing, motivations. A person in the flexible-phase wants to develop and to update and
renew his self-perception again and again – this is his field of reflection.
How Do You Make Decisions? What/Who Do You Involve in Decisions?

Imagine a Situation Where You Had to Make a Decision. How Did You Go
About It?
The earlier the development, the more likely it is that decisions are made on the
basis of “gut feeling” or rules. The later the development, the more criteria and
later principles play a role.
In ego-person mode, decisions are made easily. In the we-mode, decisions are
often understood as consensus, the majority opinion counts. In right-mode, the
technical justification and pro/contra are important. In the effective-mode, the
overall objectives are emphasized and the benefits are emphasized. In flexible
mode, decisions are often based on extensive research and analysis. Flexible make
their decision criteria or principles transparent.
References
1. Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1981. The philosophy of moral development New York:
HarperCollins.
2. Kegan, Robert, und Detlev Garz. 1984. Entwicklungsstufen des Selbst, 3. Aufl. München:
Kindt.
3. Maslow, Abraham H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review
50:370–396.
4. Krumm, Rainer. 2015. Clare W. Graves. Sein Leben, sein Werk. Die Theorie menschli-
cher Entwicklung. Mittenaar-Bicken: werdewelt.
5. Xenophon. 1999. Anabasis. Ditzingen: Reclam.
6. Roth, Gerhard, und Alica Ryba. 2017. Coaching, Beratung und Gehirn. Stuttgart: Klett-
Cotta.
7. Hofert, Svenja. 2017. Psychologie für Berater, Coachs und Personalentwickler.
Weinheim: Beltz.
8. Binder, Thomas. 2016. Ich-Entwicklung für effektives Beraten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
9. Cain, Susan. 2011.The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking.. London:
Penguin.
10. Hofert, Svenja. 2016. Was sind meine Stärken. Offenbach: GABAL.
11. Torbert, William, and David Rooke. 2005. Seven transformations of leadership. HBM.
org. Zugegriffen: 30. Juni 2017.
12. Torbert, William. 2004. Action inquiry. The secret of timely and transforming leadership.
Ort unbekannt: UK professional Business Management.
13. Torbert, William, und David Rooke. 1998. Organizational transformation as a function of
CEO’s developmental stage. Organizational Development Journal 16 (1): 11–28.
14. Bushe, Gervase R., und Barrie W. Gibbs. 1990. Predicting organization development
consulting competence from the Myers-Briggs type indicator and stage of ego develop-
ment. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 26 (3): 337–357.
References 87
15. Kamal, Ahmad. 2017. BBC News: Zuckerberg: My Facebook manifesto to re-boot glo-
balization. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38998884 (18 Feb 2017). Zugegriffen:
29. Juni 2017.
16. Sotomayor, Sonia. 2013. My beloved world. New York: Vintage.
17. Bahners, Patrick. 2014. So erfüllte sich mein amerikanischer Traum. Ein Gespräch
mit Sonia Sotomayor. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/ein-gespraech-mit-sonia-
sotomayor-so-erfuellte-sich-mein-amerikanischer-traum-12924262.html (05 May
2014). Zugegriffen: 29. Juni 2017.
18. Hofert, Svenja. 2017. Hört auf zu coachen. München: Kösel.
19. Schein, Edgar H. 2016. Humble consuting. New York: McGraw Hill.
20. Kegan, Robert, und Laskow Lahey Lisa. 2016. An everyone culture. Becoming a deliber-
ately developmental organization. Brighton: Harvard Business Review Press.
21. Beck, Don E., und Christopher C. Cowan. 2007. Spiral dynamics – Mastering values,
leadership and change. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
22. Wilber, Ken. 2008. Wege zum Selbst: Östliche und westliche Ansätze zu persönlichem
Wachstum. München: Goldmann.
23. Laloux, Frédéric. 2014. Reinventing organizations. Cambridge: Nelson Parker.
24. Dethloff, Conny: Alle reden über das Mindset. Im Blog Unternehmensdemokraten.
http://www.unternehmensdemokraten.de/alle-reden-ueber-die-wichtigkeit-von-mindset-
wie-aber-aendern/. Zugegriffen: 24. Juli 2017.
How Leadership Leads to New
Thinking 3
Who, if not a leader, can develop the thinking described in the previous
chapters? A good boss is like a good teacher – you do not forget him or her
because he or she is formative. And if you think about your own good teach-
ers and bosses, it is pretty certain that their mindset was “different” from that
of the less formative characters. Who, if not a leader, can develop the think-
ing described in the previous chapters? A good boss is like a good teacher –
you do not forget him or her because he or she is formative. And if you think
about your own good teachers and bosses, it is pretty certain their mindset
was “different” from that of the less formative characters. Because leader-
ship is so closely related to the development of people, and leadership is,
after all, our topic, it is the focus of the next few pages – always with an eye
on what leadership needs to do to develop other people and have a positive
impact on the growth mindset. And as we saw in the last chapter, positive
means: flexibilizing, but at the same time promoting clarity.
Leadership in modern definitions is not linked to hierarchy in the sense of ranking.

If leadership is determining the direction of movement and effective influence in
critical situations, then this means that almost everyone has to lead every day.
There are four leadership directions that every company needs: from above,
from the side (lateral), from below and from the middle. From the middle is self-
leadership. This is the central pivot for the (self-)development of people. Self-
leadership runs through four levels of development, which I describe later.

90 3 How Leadership Leads to New Thinking
Only a person who can lead himself is able to take responsibility and also lead
others. Not only in high-performance teams should everyone be able to influence
the others with a view to the common goal. Agility requires a mindset that must
include the ability to lead, and self-leadership is always at the beginning. How do
leadership and development interact? The chapter provides insight into systemic
foundations, insight into how leadership principles are reshaping themselves in the
age of agility, and approaches to analyzing leadership in your own organization.
The results of our study “Leadership Values in Agile Times”, which we publish
here, show companies where to look and where to start.
The world of work is changing fast, in some areas even faster than in others.
“New Work” is a new idea that is moving through many events and minds. Behind
it, as already described, is the idea of the philosopher Frithjof Bergmann and the
basic idea of a humanistically shaped working world. In this world of work, it is not
about earning money in dependency and thus automatically enslaving oneself to
some extent, but it is about eye level. There is a movement here that propagates the
workplace of the future, accompanied by a film series that presents companies in
which there is supposed to be eye level.
That eye level is an illusion when there is emotional or economic dependency is
something that some people are not aware of. The economic component is seen
even more readily, which is why the call for a basic income is growing louder and
has reached even conservative thinkers. The idea is that the government would
provide everyone with enough money to live on – without any quid pro quo or
obligation. I wrote about this topic a long time ago in my book “Everyone against
everyone” [1], New Work was nowhere mentioned at that time. In the meantime
there is a first experiment with a kind of basic income in Finland. The voices in
favour of a basic income are growing ... But as long as dependency continues to
exist, an employee is always in the weaker position, all the more so when his or her
skills are worth less on the labour market.
However, the emotional dependence of workers is overlooked by some opti-
mists. I believe it is simply due to too little or outdated psychological education.
And the tendency to want to standardize everything, including the image of man.
That is then so or so, but has no or only a few facets. Psychological egalitarianism
leads nowhere and is even harmful if we consider that psychological differences
will become even more entrenched as a result of migrants and refugees, for exam-
ple. And that it will be of central importance for educational success to take this
into account.
From a developmental psychological point of view, it is only from the effective
phase onwards that people are able to think and act from a truly personal con-
science, i.e. no longer just from “prescribed” or socially inhaled morality. Until
3.1 What Is Leadership? 91
then, they orient themselves to others, search for truths and find it difficult to dis-
tinguish themselves. This, however, defies introspection. Often people in the right-
ness mode can be very stubborn advocates of positions. This also confuses the
picture of emotional dependency. This is not characterized by the fact that someone
seems insecure and unstable, but that he sometimes takes up particularly stable
positions – but on closer examination they are not really his own.
All people need leadership that can move them forward and change their logic
according to the challenges. This requires active influence for the good – but also a
deep understanding of leadership in a context that is not shaped by formal hierar-
chies and command structures. I am convinced that an understanding of develop-
mental psychological mechanisms and values can set the decisive cornerstones for
initiating a change in thinking of a more general nature through a cultural change.
Such an understanding also helps to identify the right people who can drive change.
You have already been given the tools to do this in the previous chapter.
3.1 What Is Leadership?
In my book “Agile Leadership”, [2] I wrote extensively about leadership. I do not

want to repeat that here. You will find an extensive history of leadership theories
there. It ends in our time with a thought that is at the core of the agile mindset:
leadership in digitalization is no longer an either-or but a both-as well. That means
leadership involves not just one approach, but many. Here I would also like to con-
tradict the experts who proclaim servant leadership as the only blissful model for
the future. It is not; leadership is not a uniform construct, as some would have it.
Today, a wide variety of leadership has its justification, not just one. However, one
person does not have to master all leadership approaches.
But wait, first we need to define what leadership is in the first place. I have cho-
sen the definition “Leadership is the determination of the direction of movement”,
because it fits the most different leadership approaches. You can determine move-
ment through vision, through goal setting, through structure, and also through care
and love. Only laisser-faire is not leadership, because nothing is determined.
Leadership can come from four different directions:
• Leadership from above provides visions and the framework. Goals and strate-
gies are no longer part of a self-organized context. Neither is control. Leadership
from above is above all corporate leadership, human leadership and above all in
questions of communication. Communicating visions is above all a communi-
cative task.
• Leadership from the side takes over the ball that used to be thrown from the
top down. It leads with structures and via motivation and team development.
Servant leadership makes sense in a context where independent and highly mo-
tivated employees need support that removes obstacles. It should also be able to
do team development and resolve conflicts, after all, that is a common obstacle.
If the team is less independent and not as highly motivated, it needs even more
coaching, fixed structures and strategy. In Scrum, this is regulated by the Scrum
Master, basically a coach, and the Product Owner, the latter being a product
strategist.
• Leadership from below always has a focus on innovation. It could be a
grassroot-initiative or working underground for the sake of the organiza-
tion. When teams or employees officially or unofficially develop new products
and form teams themselves, a company has a lively leadership from below, es-
pecially if what is developed can break through to the top. The simplest variant
of leadership from below is a “company suggestion scheme”. But whether this
can become leadership at all, i.e. cause movement, is a question of implementa-
tion.
Leadership is therefore independent of hierarchy. If we take a psychological-

systemic view, leadership is at the level of the individual. An organization can
provide hierarchies in the form of orders. These can be orders of rank: first, second,
third level and so on. Or levels: junior, senior, principal and so on. Roles, as they
are known from agile management, are also such orders – in the holacracy model,
for example, there is the “link rep”, a role connecting different circles. Roles are
separate from people – hierarchies of positions are not.
cc If one understands leadership in this sense, anyone can lead – just as

anyone cannot lead who has a formal function.
But what is a critical situation? It is a situation which needs decision. And decision
always means that you take one option and loose another one. Depending on the
personal development of a person, his personality and his experience, this will be
viewed differently. Conflicts, for example, will be recognized sooner or later – also
depending on the mindset and observation skills. How close someone is to a team
also plays a role. So do you even see when things start to “burn”?
I have often experienced this problem. Certain corporate cultures avoid deci-
sions and conflicts, usually those that are particularly identity-forming with a high
proportion of idealists and intrinsically motivated employees. Is that already a con-
flict? Is it important enough? To understand this and to trace it in a group requires

people with a great inner clarity and an outward focus of attention.
The ability to include the context and altogether many aspects often requires
deep experience and knowledge in addition to the basic mindset (i.e. the ability to
take that in in the first place). Often one can only see with some distance whether
there was (sufficient) guidance or not. The more informality that has arisen to
interfere with everyday life, the less leadership there has been in the past. Too much
leadership shows itself in over-regulation and rigidity.
Leadership is directly observable when an individual successfully influences
another individual or group of people. Success is there when a direction emerges as
a result. The fact that everyone can lead in this sense is particularly important in the
context of innovation – without dominating the others and deriving a claim for
oneself.
Teams in which everyone can lead are the true high-performance teams.
According to our observations, most members of such teams are in the effective
phase. However, this is certainly not the only aspect, because the effective phase is
a wide field with many facets until it reaches full maturity. So let’s better define it
this way: A high-performance team in which every member can lead requires:
• The ability to fully explore the perspectives of others,

• The ability to form one’s own opinion, which is well-founded and incorporates
basic assumptions,
• The ability to change one’s mind when new information demands it,
• Self-reflection,
• A conscience of one’s own (i.e. alignment with one’s own values and orienta-
tion towards them, even when influenced by others),
• The ability to influence others in a positive sense,
• The ability to decide,
• The ability to cooperate with others.
Experience Does Not Make Leadership any Better

How is it that some people are better at leading others? What does that have to
do with? At least not with age and experience. Uwe Kanning examined the per-
formance of employees of a company who had undergone a potential analysis
for (prospective) managers. The analysis took the form of an assessment center.
The aim was to determine the suitability for management tasks. In doing so,
Uwe Kanning [10] considered nine competencies and rated each employee’s
performance on a four-point scale (1 = inadequate performance, 4 = very high

performance). The underlying competencies were:
• Decision-making ability
• Self-reflection
• Communication skills
• Conflict skills
• Ability to cooperate
• Leadership
• Organizational skills
• Problem Solving
• Persuasiveness
The result: leadership and age were not related to each other. Women performed
slightly better than men in the potential analysis (p < 0.01) – in all dimensions.
Now, these dimensions are somewhat fuzzy; it is unclear, for example, what
exactly is hidden behind the construct of leadership ability. Possibly above all a
certain ego development maturity?
3.1.1 Mindset and Organization
Actively influencing others is often rejected in the agile context. Many also
overdo it with coaching questions. “I’m just asking,” is what one entrepreneur
told me who liked to stroll through his business, looking over employees’ shoul-
ders and questioning one thing or another with a “Why so?”. He could not un-
derstand that questions can be interpreted as an order – it is enough for a person
to be assigned certain attributes. And an entrepreneur, well, has a different posi-
tion and role that comes from attributions regardless of his personality. The
same applies to a CEO.
These attributions have an effect, even if it is not intended. A person’s status, his
appearance, the pitch of his voice ... all these have an influence. To think that it is
possible to avoid these mechanisms of influence through structures or formal dis-
empowerment is naive. So what to do, especially if yes, self-organization is to be
focused on and teams are to be empowered to make their own decisions? One way
is to make people aware of the impact of informal power. Another is to formalize –
or order. Order means creating decision-making premises: if X, then Y – it can look
like this or different, but needs a universally valid character. Rules in Scrum serve
this order. They create a framework within which it is possible to act. If the frame-
work is clear and known, it can be extended and also changed. It is the same with
all other frameworks: they have to be crystal clear and learned. Then they can be
changed. Such a framework could also be the declaration of an entrepreneur who
defines how his company should be managed. This idea was first presented by
Bernd Oestereich (2016) in his book and we have since tried it out a few times for
our company Teamworks.
To some extent, such order, and even more formal order, can counteract per-
sonal influence. But the stronger it is, the more it dehumanizes. Just think of states
of order. These are always undemocratic and authoritarian to totalitarian. It is no
different in companies. If they are too formalized, they become bureaucratic mon-
sters, even if – see holacracy – they were created against a completely different
background.
We have already seen that personality is not static. It recomposes itself from
moment to moment. In doing so, it draws on what is known and remembered, but
is influenced at all times by the context and the situation. Therefore, a person can-
not be thought of without other people. His mindset also develops and changes in
a constant interaction with others. Influences and imprints of the past play just as
much a role as influences of the present and the moment.
An organization forms an equally dynamic framework that is constantly chang-
ing. How the person is, but also how the organization appears, is in constant flux;
from the awareness of the past in the present, new self-definitions are always pos-
sible. Despite this dynamism, the organization, as a system delimited from the en-
vironment, also provides a fixed framework, much like the personality of a person.
This solid framework gives people orientation and support.
However, this can also become heavy armour if there is too little dynamism in
it, i.e. people always work in the same contexts and experience little that is new.
The longer people stay in the same environment, the more the image they have
of the organization, of themselves and of others is reinforced. This has something
of a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are that way because you constantly get your
validation to be what you think you are. That does not mean that people who stay
with the same company for a long time have to have less dynamic mindsets.
But the probability is greater. I often learn that good managers have experienced
a lot – be it on foreign assignments, through frequent changes of company or
through several industry and division changes. Breaks in their resumes and per-
sonal crises end up being the most valuable developmental tools imaginable. And
again, this is true for the organization as a whole as well as for individuals.
cc Crises often provide a “shift”, are an elevator to new thinking.
On the other hand, few changes of industry and division tend to promote fixation.
If a manager has been working in the automotive industry for years and has been
trimmed to optimization and division of labor there, it is possible that he will apply
the previous success system to other environments as well – simply because he
knows it so well and thinks in this way. If these managers also have a fixed mindset
from the start, this danger increases because they are less flexible and are able to
promote employees under other conditions to a lesser degree.
However, the context is not only shaped by the company size, company culture,
department, the other employees and industry, but also by the dynamic aspects.
Just as any individual can behave one way in one situation and quite differently in
another, so it is in companies. When a company grows, it finds itself in a fundamen-
tally different position than when it shrinks. An optimization-driven company feels
different to employees than the one in which everything is possible because new
things are being created everywhere or there is a lot of money and little structure.
In a healthy, growing company it is much easier to be a manager than in a com-
pany that slides from one crisis into the next. If a manager experiences this and also
manages to master a completely different situation, his or her thinking has also
changed and often broadened. Possibly this will also influence the view of one’s
own mindset and that of others.
Trust Makes the Difference

Sabine has been working at the public utility company for 30 years. She trained
as an office clerk and has the image of a low-performing employee. The bosses
always complain that she is not particularly accurate and gets a lot of things
wrong. When the municipal utilities set up their own innovation company and
staffed it with new employees who had grown up in an agile context, Sabine
transferred there. The new bosses entrust Sabine with tasks that she has chosen
herself and is therefore happy to take on. At first, she does not really dare to
express her wishes. But then she starts to get involved with the presentations
and the web presence. She has knowledge of HTML and photoshop and can
contribute very well. Sabine really blossoms and becomes a very valued em-
ployee despite her 62 years. This example shows that you have to be careful
when evaluating past experiences. Drawing conclusions about the future from
them can block many opportunities. In the other direction, too many manage-
ment successes of the past were perhaps due more to chance or a lucky situation
than to the respective personality.
So we always have to think of people and their mindset together with context and
situation. The same person can wither away in one company and flourish in an-
other. For many years I also worked as a consultant in outplacement projects. Here
I very often experienced that a manager who was classified as unsuitable for lead-
ership in one company rose in the other within a very short time. It is the internal
company glasses with which people are viewed. The more static the mindset of the
entire organization, the more judgmental this view is. A company that does not see
itself as learning and does not see its development and growth as a work in progress
is prone to such fixed descriptions.
So if you want to change the mindset of your employees, start with the thinking
and action logic of the organization, involve the whole company. There are two
essential measures that sound very simple, but are complex in their design:
• The company must see itself as learning. It is not finished. It cannot be planned.
It is only possible to take the next steps and thereby learn.
• The company must communicate this learning as a process, i.e. engage in meta-
communication.
Organizational development is not the focus of this book, but I think it is important
to give some insights into the systemic perspective in the following. Psychologically,
we have already been on the road in connection with ego development in the last
chapter.
3.1.2 Systemic Theory-Theoretical View
People often talk about systemic, but hardly anyone knows exactly what it means.
Many consultants and coaches misuse the term or reduce it to a very few ideas,
such as “circulating questions”. Not once have I seen that a short training or read-
ing a book basically ended up doing more harm than good. This can happen when
one-sided interpretation leads to one-dimensional interpretation.
Learned a Lot, but Understood Nothing

A manager has been trained in systemic coaching. She learned to ask questions
and to include the context. So far, so good. The training has confirmed that the
manager should not make any “announcements” and should not exert any direct
influence. So she now stops leading all the more. Basically, the training has re-
inforced the leader’s attitude, the coaching has not developed her or even
changed her thinking.
This happens very often: continuing education that does not include the basic
logic or cannot really dock because of its brevity or even intensity and q uality
does not bring any benefit, if not harm. It is the same with books that are only
half understood, or statements that, turned in a one-sided direction, lose their
inherently balanced essence. It is not only the time factor of a training or further
education, but of course also the quality of the trainers. If they convey content
with a mindset in the right mode, they (unfortunately) reach those particularly
well who are stuck in this very mindset. So the fact that a participant finds a train-
ing good does not by itself necessarily say anything about its quality. It is much
more important that the trainer, in addition to didactic skills and knowledge, also
has the appropriate mindset. In terms of ego development, this should be “fur-
ther” than that of the participants, but not much further. Because experience
shows that if there is a difference in level of more than two, the probability of
reaching the other also decreases. So if an E8 (Flexible-Plus) trains E5 (Correct),
he will possibly cause more confusion than if an E6 (Effective) is at work.
People love simplifications – and the earlier in ego development they are, the more.
This bears the danger that they pass on simplifications. The larger the context, the
more serious the consequences.
In truth, it is not dogmatic at all: systems theory does not exclude other ap-
proaches, such as psychological ones, at all. This is also very often misunderstood.
Perhaps a quick clarification of terms if you have not read into this before:
Systemic is the derivative of systems theory. Systems theories have emerged
since the 1960s in a wide variety of disciplines. There are general and subject-
specific system theories. From the often quoted Niklas Luhmann comes a socio-
logical system theory. This theory is complex and in many respects difficult to
understand. Niklas Luhmann has created his own language, which has led to the
fact that there are regular Luhmann translations. When I ask in my trainings, only
a few have really read Niklas Luhmann. His work is usually simplified. Important
aspects are often left out or misinterpreted.
In the sense of Niklas Luhmann, a company is a system that functions according
to a binary code. Business enterprises have the binary code payment/no payment.
Everything is therefore geared towards profitability. Systems, thus also organiza-
tions, strive for self-preservation, their decisions are aligned with the binary code.
According to Niklas Luhmann, organizations consist of interactions.
Development needs decision.
Decisions are made through decision premises. There are decided and unde-
cided decision premises. Decided decision premises are anchored in the structure,
such as the hierarchy.
Undecided are informal, but can be just as effective. Thus, those who want to
change the organizational culture must first and foremost revise decisions.
Niklas Luhmann was a world explorer who created and coined his own terms.
In his world there are interactions, communications and operations. Of the human
being Niklas Luhmann knows for example the “psyche”, there is no holistic pic-
ture. All this is very theoretical, but what is the transition to practice?
How are decisions made? An illuminating method for analyzing the decision
type of an organization or a team is offered by the “belief polarity constellation”
according to Matthias Varga von Kibéd [11].
It is based on a semiotic triad. This consists between thing, concept and word.
So the question is whether the concept and the word can represent the thing meant.
Let us take the term mindset.
cc In our example, the logic of thought and action is the denotation, the
mindset is the concept, and the denoted is the logic of thought that
produces action. Thinking in such a triad produces more clarity about
what is being written or spoken about in the first place.
The triad has a mathematical, philosophical and also spiritual meaning.

Mathematically, an equilateral triangle can contain an infinite number of small tri-
angles. Thereby opposite corners touch each other, which can be transferred well
to dialectical thinking. If we take the three corners of cognition, order, binding, an
inverted triangle connects with the other corners. It touches, it flows together at the
corners.
In systemic work the triad is used for different constellations. The triad appears
in the context of systemic therapy when it comes to the constellation of child,
mother and father. The original triad consists of +, − and =, whereby everything is
to be understood value-free. The plus sign means, for example, “to add, to in-
crease”, the minus sign means “to take away, to reduce” and the equal sign means
“to preserve” or “to keep”.
This is a good way to work when it comes to concrete measures. Example: A
team discusses what they want more or less of and what they want to keep.
When One Side Dominates Everything Else ...

In a company, all employees make decisions based on their gut feeling. No one
can understand the decisions, they are always different. Sometimes an employee
is simply allowed to spend money without being asked, sometimes he is repri-
manded for exactly that.
In such a system we are on the opposite pole of order – flexibility, which has
turned negative. This turns fluid flexibility into a frozen extreme state, namely
chaos. Chaos is not bad per se, since it can give rise to something new. However,
this only applies to the temporary state. Order can become the extreme state of
rigidity. Rigidity is being frozen, remaining in the moment – wonderful in the
moment, but unbearable in the long run.
The company in frozen chaos needs new decision-making premises so that it
does not sink. What scope for decision-making do employees have in a particular
role? Once the company is out of the state of chaos, it is important to change the
decision premises as part of the change. If the leadership wants more empower-
ment from their employees, it must be reflected in these premises. In the agile
context, such decision premises can include role concepts and descriptions.
All changes need changed decision premises.
3.1.2.1 Constructivism
Systemic thinking is closely intertwined with constructivism. This is an epistemol-
ogy. In contrast to ontology, which makes statements about the nature of the world
and absolute truth, epistemology deals with the possibilities and limits of human
perception and cognition. Our cognitions and emotions construct their own kind of
reality.
The term is closely interwoven with systemic thinking. In its most radical inter-
pretation, it says that reality does not exist because everyone constructs it them-
selves. In a more moderate interpretation, there is still the individual construction
of reality – and thus the assumption that everyone can only be an expert for them-
selves. Those who think constructivistically cannot really do otherwise than con-
cede other people their autonomy. If people want to convert and instruct others,
then they cannot think constructivistically. If they only see one truth, then they have
a blind spot ...
cc Constructivist-minded people would say that there may or may not be

meaning in life. They would see that one follows a calling, the other
does not. They would also recognize agile methods only as a recom-
mended course of action derived from a construct.
Psychological approaches can also be constructivist insofar as they recognize the

individual’s construction of reality. Ego-development theory is one of them: After
all, the model describes an altered perception on relationships, context and society.
Among psychotherapies, there are others besides systemic family therapy that
assume a construction of reality, including Gestalt therapy. Non-constructivist ap-
proaches are those in which a therapist has the sovereignty of interpretation, such
as psychoanalysis according to Freud. The therapist thus contributes to the client’s
construction of reality, which can be quite helpful, especially if the patient cannot
cope in life without this support.
Many roads lead to Rome, but the same one is not right for everyone at the same
time. There is no ultimate solution and no superior approach, neither in the thera-
peutic nor in the organizational context.
3.1.3 What Makes Systemicists Tick?
Systemic practitioners working in the organizational context use theoretical mod-

els, such as Niklas Luhmann’s model, as well as approaches from systemic family
therapy, which emerged in the 1950s in Palo Alto, at the Mental Research Institute
(MRI). Well-known names of this first hour are Virginia Satir, Jay Haley, Steve de
Shazer and Paul Watzlawick. The Focused Problem Resolution Model was devel-
oped by Don Jackson, Gregory Bateson, John Weakland and Richard Fisch. This
later gave rise to other models, such as short-term therapy according to Steve de
Shazer.
Gregory Bateson and his colleagues worked closely with Milton H. Erickson in
Phoenix, who is familiar to many coaches as one of the best-known hypnothera-
pists. Milton H. Erickson never made a secret of the fact that the effects of his
therapy were due to a placebo effect. Those who believe in it benefit the most.
Basically, this just underlines: systemic therapists are not concerned with objective
truth, but with what helps the client. It does not matter if it is a sham therapy.
Because what is objective? What is real?
What is to be considered a problem is defined by the client. In the systemic ap-
proach there is no model of “right” and “wrong” and therefore no “right” percep-
tion of the problem by the therapist. Another important aspect is that change in a
systemic perspective is step by step. It is about an increase of the “new” desired by
the client himself. At which concrete change of behaviour is a first small progress
recognizable? Systemic organizational consulting follows the same principles, ex-
cept that it is about the system of the company or team. The problem defines itself,
the consultant, like the therapist, has no interpretive authority. Changes are present
when the (self-) intended behaviour increases.
From this personal level one arrives at the organizational level: if there is no
person and no personality, but only interactions and psychological and biological
systems, then it is the system that “makes” the person. It does not come ready-
made. This is both true and false. Psychology talks about gene-environment inter-
action when it comes to defining how personality comes about. Of course, there is
also personality-system interaction, although no one has researched that yet. If you
think of people around you who have worked and lived in different “systems”, you
will probably confirm this: dominant traits make their way everywhere. The per-
sonality looks for suitable environments, but it also shapes the environments.
On the other hand, the system also shapes the system, the system organization
just like the system family. All the follies of a family are transferable to the organi-
zation. Just as the family covers up (or even: does not even see) “outrages” of a
family member, it also happens in companies: group-specific behaviors emerge,
beliefs, cultures. “In our family, everyone sticks together,” a conspiratorial clan
might say, sweeping taboo topics under the table. “In this company, it is good man-
ners to associate with the old warhorses,” a company may say. The system is closed.
It only opens up to the outside world when it cannot solve its problems internally
any other way. The organizational mindset sets the tone and the pace. If we want to
influence people’s thinking in the context of cultural change, we can never do so
without involving the organization. It is in the organization that every “change”
begins.
cc From a systemic point of view, development needs a problem that is big

enough to create pressure to act. The solution to this problem can only come
from within the system.
On the individual level, each individual can always and at any time decide to do
something differently tomorrow or in the next minute than yesterday. On the organ-
isational level this is much more difficult, the decision is also in the system. Here,
too, we can take the family as a model. Imagine big powerful families, a noble
family or the mafia. Someone may drop out – he or she becomes an outsider, sacked
or mildly ridiculed, depending on the culture of the family. Maybe even kept quiet.
But the changed behavior of the one has had no influence on the system.
If the family as a whole wants to change, more has to happen than one person
leaving the previous course. A company ticks in exactly the same way. In our con-
sultations, we sometimes notice that former managing directors or “old patriarchs”
still hover over the corridors and are present in every meeting even when they have
long since left the company. They continue to shape the mindset of the organiza-
tion, often preventing anything truly new from emerging. Particularly in companies
where employees have belonged for years and decades, the mindset of the com-
pany, its culture, is a very strong bond.
3.2 Changed Management Principles in Digitalisation 103
When Agile Fails Because of the System

A traditional bank wants to become “agile”. But until now, an individual culture
and competitive pressure have prevailed. If you want to become something, you
have to sell yourself first and foremost. In this thinking, agility is also being
introduced. The IT manager is appointed to do this. But since he was a lways
used to positioning himself, he does it now. The other departments position
themselves against him. The example shows: New things are often introduced
with old thinking and fail already because of that. The old structures are strong
and ensure that everything new is subordinated to them. If you are serious about
changing the mindset, you have to change the interactions – and that is often a
long process that demands one thing above all: Consistency and leaders who
think differently. This is often not possible with the old staff. So new ideas come
into companies either through new departments that are allowed to develop a
life of their own under the protection of the board or management. Or the man-
agement team is replaced and the communication structures are rebuilt.
Committed new employees who can carry the others along are extremely valu-
able here, but they need “cover”.
3.2 Changed Management Principles in Digitalisation
Is there such a thing as agile leadership? As little as “digital leadership”. Just as

there is not one type of leadership anyway, but many different ones, if our defini-
tion of leadership is the definition of movement. And all of them have their justifi-
cation. That said, I do not agree with those who say there is no difference at all
between leadership in a digitized world and a non-digitized world. In fact, there are
significant, even crucial differences. These differences have to do with changes in
basic assumptions. From these, changed values are derived, which set impulses for
action. Values, some misunderstand, are not set in stone. They change through so-
cial, cultural, societal influences. For values to be more than just words, they need
principles. Only these awaken values from the rigidity of words.
If we think in this chain (first basic assumption, then value and principle), dif-
ferent leadership self-perceptions result. These, in turn, should lead to a change in
leadership behaviour, which, however, cannot be pressed into a grid. The essential
aspect of this “new” leadership is the focus on the team instead of the individual
and the communication of meaning instead of goals.
Table 3.1 Basic assumptions for leadership

Basic assumptions industrialization Basic assumptions digitization
The individual worker must perform The team must be innovative
Working means securing your livelihood Working means meaning
Production and administration provide Innovation and communication create value
added value
It is necessary to optimize the It is necessary to increase the performance of
performance of the individual the team
Allocation of tasks is delegation Transfer of responsibility is delegation
principle principle
Knowledge is power Skill is power
Homogeneity creates proximity Heterogeneity (of thinking, of approaches)
creates performance
Employees must be subordinate Employees should think outside the box
Performance = task and target (over) Performance = development
fulfilment
Unambiguity is the basis Ambiguity is the basis
So the real difference between today and yesterday is not in a leadership action
or style. The real difference is not being bound to any of them, because every situ-
ation and challenge requires something different. Getting this into people’s heads
is difficult, because people are driven by the desire for simple solutions and patent
remedies.
Leadership in the digital age is also different because the environmental condi-
tions are different. I have listed some of the differences in Table 3.1. These could
be expanded at will, but even this small comparison makes it clear that the require-
ments are worlds apart. And that is why leadership in the digital age cannot be the
same as in the industrial age.
We summarize: leadership is determining the direction of movement, whether
of individuals, teams or organizations. Leadership also means exerting influence in
critical situations. How this is done, however, is changing significantly due to digi-
talization.
3.3 Changing Competences in Digitisation
Another consequence of the changed basic assumptions are new requirements,

which also demand different competencies, skills and ultimately mindsets. This is
shown in Table 3.2.
3.3 Changing Competences in Digitisation 105
Table 3.2 Requirements due to digitization compared to industrialization

Requirements Industrialization Digitization
Education Varies: low, medium, high, High and very high (as far as
with emphasis on the jobs with a salary above the
medium range level of a basic income are
concerned)
Ambiguity tolerance Only really necessary in High at all levels
higher positions and
politics
Employee-employer Based on dependence At eye level (at least without
relationship existential dependence)
Ego development E4-E6, depending on the >E6 (effective phase) for all,
task >E7 (flexible phase) for
complex tasks
Willingness to learn Moderate High
Self-responsibility Often not desired Predominantly high
Readiness for change Low High
Analytical intelligence Low to medium High
(problem understanding
and -dissolving)
Practical intelligence High Low
(manual-technical)
Emotional intelligence Job-related High across the board
(understanding others)
Willingness to adapt to High It is more important to be able to
laws and norms of the question them.
reference group
Dissenting opinion Only at senior At all levels
management level
Cooperativeness Low (rather teamwork) High
Value creation in industrialization was focused on production and administra-

tion, but under digitization it is in innovation and communication. Instead of “the
individual worker”, it is now about the team.
This calls for cooperation at all levels. For me, cooperation is a significant fur-
ther development of the teamwork of the industrial age. Teamwork in its advanced
form was focused on motivating different people to work towards a common goal.
In its simple version, it focused on the working atmosphere in a department where
several people performed individual tasks. The team player nature of individual
employees was to ensure that this happened peacefully and that the few interface
tasks could lead to a result. Cooperation is considerably more. Firstly, it goes be-
yond the boundaries of one’s own work group and secondly, it has not only the
achievement of goals in mind, but also joint further development in the sense of
higher-level goals (and not just work goals).
We can therefore state:
• There are few leadership principles that always apply: inner clarity, your own
basic assumptions, looking at people and not at me.
• Some leadership principles are specific to a particular age: such as cooperation
rather than teamwork and delegating responsibility rather than tasks.
• Some leadership principles are individual depending on the context and situa-
tion. Context is the cultural and regional context, the industry and company.
Situation is the phase of the company (e.g. growth or restructuring).
• Some leadership principles depend on the personality: one louder, the other
quieter.
• Some leadership principles are rather fashionable identification aids and there-
fore not principles (such as cooperative style, “dog management”, etc.).
There are few leadership principles that always apply. Leadership is not always to
be decided, nor is it always to be coached or strategized. It is all in good time and
often at the same time. And so it is always about making a difference, and that can
only be done from an inner position of clarity, with basic assumptions and looking
at others.
Does digitalization need more leadership? Harvard professor John P. Kotter has
repeatedly coined this term since 1990 and continues to publish on it today [3].
According to him, managers are administrators, while leaders are visionaries.
Management stands for organizing processes, for planning and controlling. For
Kotter, leadership means inspiring and motivating.
If we look at our table, digitalization unquestionably requires more leadership
than before, but still a certain amount of organization and administration.
Coordinating and moderating leadership activities are also becoming more impor-
tant, simply because there are more and more interfaces.
cc We should abandon the assumption that leadership is a uniform con-

struct and that “more leadership” is the panacea. Leadership is diverse
and always different.
3.3 Changing Competences in Digitisation 107
3.3.1 T-Shape for Agile Working
The so-called “T-Shape Model“was originally invented by IBM. The company wanted
to make it clear to its experts that it takes more than expertise to be successful in the
job market. Design thinking, a very widespread method from the environment of agil-
ity, which moves the innovation process into the group, has taken this up as an idea.
Those who come together in a design thinking process should not only contrib-
ute their expertise, but also complementary skills. You could also say Thinking,
Linking, Doing. “Thinking” is the long bar of the “T.” Within it is everything that
gets the thinking apparatus going from the expert side. “Linking” is networking
and collaboration skills. “Doing” describes implementation skills.
You could also break it down further:
• Thinking = ability to think divergently (i.e., think outside the box). Generate
ideas and observe.
• Linking = communicating, bringing together, empowering others, bringing
thoughts together.
• Doing = implement, realize, specialize.
The T-Shape model is not set in stone, you can take it in different ways and adapt
it. It also helps a lot with practical career development. For example, if you want to
identify areas of focus in employees and widen their “T”.
Figure 3.1 shows a model based on the Design Thinking process. However, this
can be individually adapted according to the basic idea of expertise plus X.
Fig. 3.1 T-Shaping makes skills for agile working visible

cc Change Your Personnel and Career Development! Leadership is the

determination of movement, including successful intervention in criti-
cal situations. We have thus made a leadership definition according to
which every employee must assume leadership selectively and tempo-
rarily, even without formal position or role authority: From this perspec-
tive, everyone must learn leadership.
That is why self-leadership should be a component of career and
management development, for which I present our approach starting
on page 125. For this reason, however, employees should also be better
enabled methodically to shape communication. Skills in moderation,
but also in conflict resolution and group decision-making are more im-
portant today than they were in the past.
In general, the group, the team, should play a much stronger role
than before, where development measures were always aimed at in-
dividuals. In the industrial age, career was a life model for individuals.
That is no longer in keeping with the times. I could imagine that en-
tire teams could also make a career in different companies because
they are well coordinated. They could be promoted and developed as
a whole. We have long known that teams can achieve much more
than individuals and that the maximum IQ in a team says nothing
about how the group works together. Conversely, a well-rehearsed
team can get much more out of itself than an individual ever could.
Even ego development could take on a different meaning in a team
because of the collaborative approach. Few individuals with flexible
thinking could be developmental for the others. Productivity in
teams is thus something quite different from the performance of an
individual.
Career development used to start with building technical skills. Pro-
cess knowledge was added through practical work in an industry and
field. Methodological knowledge finally increased professionalism and
underpinned the technical knowledge. Little attention has been paid to
methods of team communication, self-organisation and self-develop-
ment in groups. Bringing this more to the fore could be an important
task of future-oriented personnel work.
3.4 Four Management Directions 109
3.4 Four Management Directions
Now I would like to go into more detail about the different leadership directions in
order to deepen the mindset that each of them needs. This will help you to define
requirement profiles more clearly and to question the suitability of people more
concretely. We assume here that the basic requirements for self-leadership, which
I described on page 125, are always fulfilled or that this represents a sensible devel-
opment direction for self-organization contexts.
The leadership directions help to analyze from which directions leadership
comes or does not come – and where it may need to be strengthened or weakened.
For example, there may be too much leadership from above and too little from the
side. If leadership from below cannot penetrate at all, there is a need for action
here, as this could prevent innovations. Or self-leadership: If a company finds that
its employees are not able to lead themselves, the focus should first be on strength-
ening this leadership from the middle.
Leadership from above has a hard time in some companies, it is something of a
necessary evil. This thinking is specific to start-ups and software companies, as
well as companies and institutions with a high proportion of intrinsically motivated
employees, such as non-governmental organizations, provided they are not bureau-
cratically organized (NGOs). But organizations that eschew leadership by rank and
position power need visionary leadership and many interface positions in addition
to teams that take responsibility. I often use the image of father and mother: one
must lead the way and decide with clarity, another must solve the problems of ev-
eryday life with care. Whether one is a man and the other a woman makes no dif-
ference. But it does give order to companies with little hierarchy. So one is more of
a CEO, the other a COO, that is, an operations person who is responsible for all
personnel issues and internal communications.
More conservative industries, where leadership is still largely about delegating
tasks, usually need less leadership from above and more from the side. Since peo-
ple here are less used to taking responsibility, it is important to strengthen self-
leadership. Rules, such as those offered by Scrum, can be very helpful at the begin-
ning, because people who are not used to such freedom need a framework.
Let’s take a closer look.
3.4.1 Mindset for Leadership from the Side
Leading from the side means that the leading person has no formal authority to
order anything. Rather, it is a matter of getting different parties into a common
boat, which then sets course for a goal, but without a directive captain. Lateral –
that is, sideways – leaders help others get on board. Think of it figuratively, espe-
cially if one or the other does not want to go at all and would rather take their car.
Lateral leadership is often misunderstood as servant leadership. This is just as
wrong as the assumption that lateral leaders, e.g. project managers or scrum mas-
ters, are not allowed to exert any influence. Just do not manipulate, push, decide ...
The others should do it, the self-image of coaches is usually to offer help for self-
help – but sometimes the best help is a clear statement, a decision or an energetic
intervention.
The biggest obstacle in a no-power-people-with-us context is conflict swept
under the rug. Often these very companies offer a lot of sense because they are
focused on a great product or added value for society. This makes it even more dif-
ficult to take action – after all, it is all about the cause. At first glance, servant
leadership seems to fit well into this concept.
Lateral leadership and servant leadership are often closely related, but they basi-
cally have only one thing in common: servant leadership is about leadership for the
good. Leadership that serves people for a higher goal. It is always more altruistic,
always more considerate, always nicer than leadership without meaning (let’s not
talk about evil, it is similarly attractive as good, because nobody recognizes it as
evil).
If you visualize lateral leadership, you will probably immediately recognize the
difficulty: From the side, you can take someone by the hand, accompany them,
support them, help them into the boat. You can motivate others to come on board
after all. All this is communication-intensive. This requires either a convincing
personality or clear rules, which, however, are only taken seriously if they are rep-
resented by someone who appears self-confident.
Especially when conflicting interests are to be reconciled, lateral roles require
communication strategists who are at peace with themselves and can therefore en-
sure clarity. One serves the organization and the team, i.e. two masters. This is only
possible with inner guidance. Servant leadership does not really fit there. It is too
much oriented towards identity. At least in the meaning it has in management lit-
erature. For me, it belongs to leadership from above.
In lateral function servant leadership in the original thought according to Robert
K. Greenleaf, who was inspired by the hero Leo from Hermann Hesse’s “Die
Morgenlandfahrt”, is only conceivable if it is a small organization. Lateral leaders
who coordinate different interests and work across teams, departments or divisions
need different tools. If they see themselves as serving too much, they will grind
themselves between the fronts. Ego-development in the effective phase is a mini-
mum requirement for these people. In addition, they need methodological skills,
for example in moderation, coaching, conflict intervention and team development.
In general, the focus of this type of leadership is methodical – unlike leadership

from above.
There are five key tasks for lateral leaders:
• coordinate workflows, processes and content,

• introduce rules and structures,
• ensure compliance with rules,
• developing teams,
• catalyze communication,
• resolve conflicts.
Of these tasks, organizations currently recognize mostly only the first, in the agile
context also the second and third – but rarely the fourth and fifth. Accordingly, they
look at the wrong competencies when selecting applicants for lateral tasks. It is less
about sense-making and charisma and much more about methodical knowledge on
team and individual level. The suitcase of expertise may also include basics in
systems theory, psychology and group dynamics. Tolerance of ambiguity is impor-
tant. And a conciliatory relationship to power, because if you do not have that, you
tend to be powerless.
3.4.2 Mindset for Leadership from Above
One management fashion follows another, but none of the experts has ever neatly
distinguished leadership from other constructs, such as conflict resolution skills or
decision-making ability. Up to now, leadership has been treated in the management
literature predominantly in the sense of a superior function. But what does it say
about personal capabilities when someone is empowered by an organization to
make decisions about something and others? Nothing. It only says something about
highly individual promotion policies.
Leadership from above, in our definition, is characterized by one person leading
the way and taking other employees with him, by virtue of his position or personal-
ity. Leadership from above can therefore be formal and informal. Equipped with
formal power, it is easier to fill out a framework. In addition, there are the legal
requirements – in the end, someone has to hold the “head” and decide. In environ-
ments with weak management, these processes are often ignored or outsourced.
Because the legal department, for example, does not want to make decisions, exter-
nal people are hired. Strictly speaking, this is not only weak leadership, but no
leadership at all. Because the targeted exertion of influence by determining the di-
rection of movement is not tied to positional power, it can happen that even high-
ranking managers do not lead.
Digitalization brings new demands on leadership from above. If we recall
Table. 3.1 “Basic assumptions of leadership”, there was the topic “meaning” as a
requirement of digitalization. Leadership has to be meaningful, as far as it aims at
motivating people intrinsically or needs intrinsically motivated people to cope with
challenges in processes that cannot be planned. This requires approaches that differ
from some of those commonly used to date.
One of these is servant leadership, which I mentioned earlier. I would now
like to make this more concrete, because it fits better into the context of leader-
ship from above than lateral leadership. The inventor of servant leadership,
Robert K. Greenleaf, a former manager at AT&T, was inspired by Hermann
Hesse. The hero Leo in “Die Morgenlandfahrt” (The tomorrow land journey)
managed to hold a group of disoriented sense seekers together by serving them.
However, once he was gone, the group fell apart. Basically, Leo was more of a
“spiritual leader,” which is comparatively hard to imagine in an insurance com-
pany, for example.
And he has by no means helped the team to organise itself, which is why this
concept only works at the top of owner-managed companies or where managers
stay in their positions for longer and thus remain identification figures for a number
of years. They can become veritable father figures who generate attachment. In
such a context, everything would collapse if an executive à la Leo left the company.
This is only desirable for companies that are owner-managed.
Servant leadership in the sense of Robert K. Greenleaf is strongly reminiscent
of visionary leadership or the transformational leadership concept. This successor
of transactional leadership, which wants to lead people with goals, creates mean-
ing, communicates and transforms people, i.e. changes them. This contradicts lat-
eral tasks, for example. Meaning and vision are more the responsibility of top
management. From the divisional manager level upwards, the concept can no lon-
ger function, because this is where the conflict of interest lies in the system.
Division managers pass something on and on and are almost forced from this posi-
tion to represent their own interests.
Servant leadership, on closer inspection, is little different than transformational
leadership. Whether one says “I serve” or “I lead” ultimately differs only by one
word and, upon closer examination, by one nuance. Service is a matter of defini-
tion. Just as power can be misinterpreted as dominance behavior, service can be
misinterpreted as submission as well as caring.
Of course, this leadership must also be charismatic. We can also call the whole
construct heroic leadership, the differences between all these supposed types of
leadership are marginal, because it is basically always about the same thing: taking
people along and getting the best out of them – in the sense of something that is
“worth it”.
The hero Leo in Hesse’s novel had an immense influence on the group. This was
even so strong that the group disintegrated after he left. For an organization – as I
said, unless it is tied to a founder and should remain so – such a tie to a hired person
is problematic. What works best at the team level can become a threat at the orga-
nizational level. Charismatic, paternal or maternal personalities leave similar voids
as autocrats when they leave. This can only lead to paradoxical circumstances:
There is something desired – making sense to people, providing support and orien-
tation – that has to be fought against from an organizational point of view (an ir-
replaceable leader).
“Serving people” is also a form of exercising power. It could be called “good”
power, since it is focused on well-being for all. It remains power whose hallmark
is influence. And influence is never far from manipulation. Even a person’s appear-
ance, his looks, his attributions influence. And even more so his conscious and
purposeful actions, if they are authentic, that is, if they come from within.
Holacratic models try to undermine the human being by making a personality
“unimportant” through role descriptions and regulations. This cannot be a solution.
Because Leo in Hesse’s book also shows: such leadership from above can bring
about much more good than rules ever could.
What kind of person is needed for leadership from above, let’s call it servant
leadership, visionary, transformational, charismatic or hero leadership? In ego de-
velopment, these are people in the post-conventional range who have already
moved beyond the flexible phase and have developed principles. This also enables
them to act under complexity and to think originally.
In addition, there is a certain personality which is decoupled from ego develop-
ment – possibly characterized by a little megalomania, by courage and self-
confidence, healthy narcissism. Especially important in this leadership from above
is the ability to touch emotionally. A lateral manager does not have to do that in this
form. And in my view, this also requires a certain psychological distance.
3.4.3 Mindset for Leadership from Below
Leadership from below? This has nothing to do with revolution. Leadership from
below is always there when there is pressure from below that causes movement at
the top. A lot can be imagined if we think of the sub-definition of leadership as
exerting influence in critical situations. For then leadership from below is given
when the grassroots change something through their own commitment. An innova-
tion that was initiated from below and developed without an official mandate from
above is considered leadership from below in this sense. Something like this hap-
pens even in corporations, for example, when a person or team decides to do some-
thing that is not actually wanted at the top.
Industrial and organizational psychology knows counterproductive and extra-
productive behavior. Extraproductive behavior helps the company move forward.
This is different from counterproductive behavior, where employees act against the
interests of the company, for example through unethical actions. Leadership from
below is also influencing the thoughts and actions of those acting from a position
of formal “above”, for example through clever communication and influencing.
But also through actions that at first seem like a blockade, but in the end force the
“top” to take action: Refusal to perform, for example, can be seen as leadership
from below, provided it triggers a movement, such as a restructuring or even a re-
placement of the previous leadership position.
Of course, anything that generates rethinking also falls into this category, for
example when employees launch initiatives that bring new thinking into a com-
pany without management wanting it – or simply without an official mandate. It
is often said that you have to start at the top to make changes. This is not true.
Movement can come from all directions. Company suggestion schemes, the ware-
house worker’s conversation with the board in the elevator, all of these are leader-
ship from below, the moment they have an impact. So if the board initiates some-
thing as a result of the warehouse worker’s intervention, that was leadership from
below, which was then translated into leadership from above. Movement has been
created!
This Is how Underground Work Works

A traditional insurance company has built up a new digital division that is hung
directly under the board of directors. Again and again, worlds collide: the young
and motivated specialists versus those employees, some of whom have been
with the company since their apprenticeship. Some want change, others want
nothing to change. Processes are bureaucratic, nothing works without a stamp.
If the new division were to follow them, no progress would be possible. Covered
by the division management, regulations are thus undermined. This often esca-
lates and leads to many disputes, but through the “working underground” of the
new area there are small steps forward. All this can only work because it is toler-
ated by the board.
The likelihood of productive leadership from below increases the more the corpo-
rate mindset encourages and allows for it. When the board has breakfast with the
employees, communication is open, ideas can make room, and teams can form
themselves without a formal act, the influence of the grassroots increases.
3.4.4 Mindset for Self-Leadership
Self-leadership unfortunately leads a shadowy existence. If we remain consistent in

our image, self-leadership means that a person can set himself in motion and ef-
fectively influence himself. In the literature, self-leadership is often considered to
be close to resilience, i.e. resistance. In our understanding, it is more than that. On
the other hand, it is hardly possible without a resilient personality. In this respect,
resilience can be seen as a prerequisite for effective self-leadership. Resilience as
an emotional style according to Richard Davidson [4] is something that can be
trained very well, for example through meditation.
Leadership from the middle is all the more important the more a company pos-
tulates taking responsibility and self-organization. Only people who are capable of
self-leadership can assume responsibility in this way. For example, only those can
lead with rules, such as the Scrum context requires, who are able to break them
from the mindset.
Some think that you have to teach people behavior in order for them to learn to
lead. This is one-sided and naive. Just because someone has learned to do some-
thing does not mean that he can produce and reproduce that behavior himself. He
has adopted a “script” without understanding in what context it runs. If, for exam-
ple, a Scrum Master can explain rules and insist on their observance, then he has
mastered a learned behavior. But he does not necessarily also understand the con-
text and the fact that rules always need to be individualized. For me, the borderline
always shows up where people not only introduce and teach rules, but can also
break them with a view to context and situation.
I have seen many people act, where this action had no effect on the attitude.
They acted blindly because they follow rules, and they just could not break away
from them. Conny Dethloff, whom you met in Chap. 1 in an interview, wrote for
the so-called “Unternehmensdemokraten” in a blog post titled “Everybody talks
about the mindset” and oriented himself on the martial art Shu-Ha-Ri. It is a very
nice three-step that also shows the importance of having a framework and stick-
ing to it.
To go through this three-step Shu (keep the rules), Ha (break up, deviate) and Ri
(leave, separate) requires an ego development stage E6 or effective phase in me.
Fig. 3.2 Self-leadership

development model
However, purely statistically, hardly 45% of adult professionals and managers are
found in this phase or beyond. The ability for self-leadership can be recognized by
the fact that someone can follow Shu-Ha-Ri at all. Without the “we” or “right”
mode, people would mainly be able to do Shu and Ri, i.e. structurally stick to
something or boycott it, but not change it in a meaningful way.
Self-leadership, in my view, goes through various stages that go hand in hand
with ego development. If you want to develop people (or yourself) towards a stage
of effectiveness, you would do well to start with self-leadership. My self-leadership
model with its four domains (see Fig. 3.2 and my self-leadership reflection sheet)
can provide guidance. I distinguish there between two poles and positive and exag-
gerated implementations. Here, one side is receptive, acknowledging and perceiv-
ing, the other active-implementing.
The facets between “positive receptive” and “positive active” should be thought
of with concrete situations. Let us take the example of structuring ability. Active
reflects the ability to produce rules, receptive the ability to follow them. So this
corresponds exactly to the Shu-Ha-Ri principle. In both directions there is an exag-
geration in which something breaks into its opposite and therefore becomes rigid
and less effective or even counterproductive.
My experience is that this questionnaire initially puts people off in earlier ego
development phases, as this differentiation of thinking is unfamiliar. Therefore, in
this case I recommend reducing the questionnaire to points that are essential for the
context. It is very important not to leave it at self-assessment and to go into situa-

tions very concretely. The questionnaire is oriented towards the polarities of faith
that I wrote about a few pages earlier (page 105): Cognition (knowledge), Order
(structure), and Bonding (relationship) (see Fig. 3.2).
3.4.4.1 My Basic Assumptions

Figure 3.2: self-organization in three phases.
What makes people who can lead themselves? Many people today talk about
resilience. Certainly, resilience is needed, but not only. The more personal respon-
sibility the working world demands, the more people need to be able to balance
themselves. This includes, for example, saying “no”, demanding things, actively
shaping one’s own work.
What are the underlying assumptions? For me, they are the following:
• A person who can lead himself is in balance with himself.

• Only a person who can lead himself is able to lead others outside of a formal
position power.
• Therefore, self-leadership is a basic requirement for self-organization.
• A prerequisite for self-leadership is further the ability to recognize the necessity
of such a balance in the first place. This requires that someone recognizes the
ONE and the OTHER as equal and understands mutual condition as necessity.
Rules need freedom from rules, freedom needs binding. And so on.
Self-leadership is a reflection of personal development and maturity. As the world

of work is about to turn completely around, self-leadership skills will become in-
creasingly important. It has little to do with time management. I believe that the
most a person who can set goals for themselves needs to learn is organizational
methods to be effective and efficient. But I believe that someone who cannot think
bi-valued will also fail at methods (i.e., epistemic action, if you will).
Some people think that all you have to do is give people the framework and
everything will work itself out. But it is not just the system. It is not enough to give
people opportunities and believe that they will use them. There are cognitive differ-
ences, different levels of maturity and also differences in knowledge. There are
employees who are allowed to do a lot and are still not able to develop a new prod-
uct. For example, because they cannot separate self-interest from the market. Or
because they cannot calculate what they are allowed to do from a business perspec-
tive and as a result invent sweets instead of software. A look at our model of self-
organization in three phases helps here. It shows how framework conditions play a
role (see Fig. 3.3).
118
3
Fig. 3.3 Framework conditions for self-organisation

How Leadership Leads to New Thinking
In my opinion, the fact that so much goes wrong in the agile context also has to
do with the lack of focus on this self-management competence. When employees
only follow their own interests, when egoism interferes with productive work,
when the carpet can no longer be walked on without stumbling because of the con-
flicts swept underneath, these are signs of a lack of leadership, but also of a lack of
self-leadership.
Self-leadership interacts with lateral leadership and leadership from above.
Leadership from above can counteract self-leadership if it does not allow sufficient
freedom. Lateral leadership, for example of a Scrum Master, can hinder self-
leadership if, for example, the Scrum Master thinks more narrowly than the devel-
opers. So when self-leadership does not work, sometimes it is not because the
people are potentially incapable of it, but because the leadership from above and/
or laterally does not allow them to self-lead in the first place.
3.4.5 Self-Organisation
One of the core ideas of agility is the self-organization of teams. But self-
organization is not just self-organization. And of course it is a mistake to believe
that you only need to give responsibility to a team and everything will run smoothly.
Several conditions must be fulfilled, which I show in Fig. 3.3. The framework con-
ditions are very important, both at the level of the individual and at the level of the
organization. A team is always embedded in its context. For example, there is a fi-
nance department with which he has to cooperate. This department wants or needs
to be able to plan and calculate – a necessity that agile project management meth-
ods such as Scrum only provide for to a limited extent. Conflicts of interest and
interface issues automatically arise here.
Companies that introduce self-organization should think this through, but often
do not. They should further take into account that any change first leads to chaos
and climate deterioration. No one should expect something to work from the start.
Inconsistency, when the management intervenes out of “necessity” and counteracts
the previous approval, leads to irritation among the employees, to which they then
often react with uncertainty and persistence.
Depending on the context, there are three different levels of self-organization.
Level 1 means that the team solves common tasks that lie outside of business re-
sponsibility, such as product development. Level 2 involves business responsibility
and implements this by having the teams also determine their own goals. Level 3 is
complete self-organization: the team manages itself, sets its own goals and also
develops itself independently. This could also be translated as high performance,
although there are different interpretations of this term [3].
3.4.6 Our Leadership Values Study
What values do managers live by in increasingly agile times, under the influence of
digitalization and constant pressure to change? My company Teamworks GTQ
GmbH conducted a survey among 270 executives recruited on the Internet. We
wanted to find out which leadership values executives align themselves with in
agile and non-agile contexts. We assumed that values provide orientation and set
impulses for action. However, we were aware that values say nothing about final
actions and behavior. They can be socially desired and socially shaped. From a
psychological point of view, they can also be “introjects”. This means that the val-
ues expressed are not really anchored as an impulse to act, but are “implanted”.
Someone just thinks they have to act this way or that way, and may think they do.
Ultimately, then, values are to be understood as a framework within which leaders
wish to operate or which they regard as appropriate for leadership. Whether they
really use this framework as orientation for their actions in everyday life is a com-
pletely different question.
In the survey, we addressed further topics in order to establish cross-connections
and include clues that could counteract the previously given assessment. Among
other things, we wanted to know whether leaders self-reflect and how often. We
assume that self-reflection and effective leadership are related. This is shown by
various studies, such as Leadership Culture in Transition from 2016 [5]. Mario
Vaupel [3] also considers reflexivity of leaders to be crucial in the future. He de-
fines this as one of seven necessary mindsets, although his mindset definition is
different from mine. He sees these as patterns of thinking and feeling. In Vaupel’s
model, a person can adopt multiple mindsets [12, 13].
Furthermore, we were interested in whether the “mindset” according to Carol
Dweck could have an influence on the leadership values. Therefore, in the last sec-
tion, the mindsets (growth & fixed mindsets according to Carol Dweck) were to be
assessed on a scale from 1 (= strongly agree) to 4 (= strongly disagree). The as-
sumption behind this is that people with flexible mindsets, who believe in the abil-
ity of people to develop, are more likely to have “progressive” values. Carol Dweck
[9] herself repeatedly describes a correlation. For example, she sees the Enron
bankruptcy as a consequence of a fixed mindset. She also views talent-oriented
recruiting (goal: ready-made talent!) critically. So the converse is that people with
a fixed mindset may be more inclined to make less open value statements and tend
to label something as right or wrong. Conversely, we expected people with growth
mindset to view leadership more broadly and openly.
The questionnaire consisted of a total of four pages and was distributed via so-
cial networks between March 22 and June 8, 2017. In the first section, we collected
general data on age, gender, and highest level of education, as well as company
size, leadership culture, and leadership responsibility. The second section of the
questionnaire collected values. We distributed these into five groups using my
Worklifestyle® model based on Spiral Dynamics [8]. These groups contain “value
systems” that form clusters, such as hierarchy and order or success and perfor-
mance.
To a certain extent, these value systems can also be understood as degrees of
agility. A one-sided orientation towards hierarchy and order, for example, prevents
agility in the sense of mobility and therefore describes a low degree of agility. It
ties in with the conventional logic of delegation through the handing over of tasks.
As Frédéric Laloux [6] already showed, values go hand in hand with an entrepre-
neurial orientation, which form the following clusters:
• red: assertive and power-oriented (dynamic style),

• blue: conservative-hierarchical (conventional style),
• orange: measurement-performance oriented (performance style),
• green: cooperative-team oriented (cooperative style),
• yellow: flexible-self-optimizing (flexi style).
In this context, “yellow” questions were always focused on cooperation and the
connection of different values, thus reflecting a both/and logic. The other questions
had a clear and unambiguous focus. Here, then, an either-or logic is entrenched.
The flexible (yellow) value cluster shows that different aspects of leadership are
seen and preferred. It is therefore not only about achieving goals, processes and
rules as well as cooperation on their own, but about integrating everything situa-
tionally and contextually as well as bringing it to a higher level.
In Spiral Dynamics®, developed by Don Beck and Christopher Gowan [1], my
system corresponds to the levels red, blue, orange, cooperative and yellow. With
Laloux, yellow is “teal”. We have been working with our interpretation for several
years and use the corresponding questionnaires, for example, in workshops and at
events.
We have not included “turquoise” from the spiral of Spiral Dynamics, with us
better world style, and purple, with us family style. The reason: Questions about
turquoise cannot be separated from “idealism” and can be transferred less well to
leadership values in the sense of impulses for action in dealing with people. One
can pursue cooperative or assertive values out of idealism. Purple is not separable
from green, i.e. cooperative style. A team focus can occur here as well as there. The
only difference is in the leadership: In a purple company, the patriarch sets the
framework. The central value is security and loyalty, how this is lived is again
highly different. To avoid confusion: Laloux speaks of teal in yellow, this includes
yellow and turquoise together for him.
There are questionnaire versions for individual, leadership, team and company
values. Here we have used the leadership values questions.
Our experience so far is that a focal point is evident in most companies. That is,
the values tend towards a value cluster or are mixtures of two successive clusters,
such as dynamic or flexi style.
Participants were also asked to provide information about their interests (phi-
losophy, psychology, sports, etc.). The idea was that interests can ultimately show
values. One hypothesis was that these may be related to certain leadership values.
For the analysis of the results, only the data of those who completed the question-
naire in full were considered.
The following is a summary of the key findings.
3.4.6.1 Demographic Data of the Sample

In the end, the data of 227 participants could be considered for the evaluation. 110
were female (49%), 115 were male (50%), and two made no statement (1%). The
age structure was as follows:
• 5 persons under 30 years of age (2%),

• 54 people between the ages of 31 and 39 (24%),
• 96 people between the ages of 40 and 49 (43%),
• 52 people aged between 50 and 55 (23%),
• 18 people over the age of 56 (8%).
The highest school degree was most frequently Master’s, Magister, Diplom (60%),
followed by commercial training (16%), Bachelor’s (10%), Doctorate (8%), tech-
nical training (3%) and no degree (3%). When asked about leadership, 192 partici-
pants answered “yes” (85%) and 35 answered “no” (15%). Since we define leader-
ship as determining the direction of movement and successfully exerting influence
in critical situations, leadership responsibility in the sense of a ranking was not a
prerequisite for participation (see also Fig. 3.4).
We surveyed which leadership culture the participants are characterized by, i.e.
whether it is a Western or Northern European style or, for example, an American
style. Our practical experience tells us that there are considerable differences here.
Managers in a Scandinavian-style company often pursue the value concept of
teamwork more clearly than Western Europeans. Americans are usually more
performance-oriented and altogether more “measurement-friendly”.
3.4 Four Management Directions
Fig. 3.4 Distribution of management responsibility

123
3.4.6.2 Results
In the entire sample, the value clusters cooperative and flexi style led by a wide
margin, followed by performance and conventional style, and far behind dy-
namic style. People who have experience with agile methods never chose this
value cluster. These people are also more often at home in “flexi style”, i.e. they
prefer values that can be described as “both/and” thinking. People who have no
experience with agile methods are more often anchored in the cooperative value
cluster. People who have experience with agile methods tend towards the flexi-
ble value cluster.
Furthermore, there is a correlation between leadership experience and leader-
ship values. People without leadership experience prefer the cooperative value
cluster even more than the flexible one. Experience with agile methods also leads
to a preference for less “one-sided” value clusters such as dynamic, conventional
and performance. The cooperative value cluster reflects one-sidedness and either-
or thinking – just like the dynamic, conventional and performance clusters. The
attitude is either unilaterally cooperative (green, cooperative), assertive (red, dy-
namic), order-oriented (blue, conventional) or goal-oriented (orange, performance).
We asked values not only in the form of these clusters, but also as opposite
poles. You can see the average result in Fig. 3.5.
We found a relationship between leadership type and these scores. Leadership
responsibility and order/flexibility are significant at p < 0.05. Entrepreneurs and
team leaders to flexibility. Division managers tend to be more orderly.
We also contrasted the individual and the team. Here, there are more people
overall who consider the individual to be more important than the team. This atti-
tude is even more pronounced among older participants and participants in higher
positions. Experience with agile methods makes no difference.
We further wanted to know whether the individually preferred leadership cul-
ture was related to the country culture imprint. The correlation between country
culture and leadership culture was indeed present. There is a weak but significant
correlation between country leadership culture and agility level rSp = 0.145,
p < 0.01.
This looks like the fact that Northern Europeans prefer cooperative values
more often and only then flexible ones. This means that there is a greater ten-
dency towards cooperative, team-oriented and dialogical or consensus-oriented
leadership behaviour, or that these leadership values are preferred. The reverse is
true for Western Europeans. They are more flexible, i.e. more likely to choose
responses that combine different aspects of leadership. In numbers, it looks like
this: Participants who are influenced by the leadership culture “Northern
European” have first cooperative and then flexible leadership values. Among
Fig. 3.5 Values based on opposites
Western Europeans, the flexible values predominate numerically, followed by the

cooperative ones.
From what experience do the participants look at these values? How intensively
do they have the opportunity to lead at all, i.e. can they really live the values? We
recorded the time that leaders spend on leadership tasks. To do this, we first sur-
veyed how much time in percent the people spend on leadership tasks and com-
pared the different time figures with the hierarchy levels.
A surprising result was that there were no significant differences in the use of
time derived from the hierarchy levels. The first levels – managing directors, entre-
preneurs – spend less time overall than the other levels. Not surprisingly, the high-
est values were found among the division managers.
The divisional manager level is commonly called the “paralysis layer” because
it has to mediate between the interests from above and below. Division managers
spend 37.90% of their time on leadership. Otherwise, all values are around 30–
35%: Disciplinary project managers fall out of the overall picture as they spend
only 24% of their time. This could have something to do with the fact that in tradi-
tional project management, leadership is often an add-on and project managers are
still used to leading with Excel and from the computer. Lateral leaders, i.e. Scrum
Masters among others, use 35.42%, project leaders without disciplinary responsi-
bility 32.62% of their time.
There is a significant relationship between percentage of leadership in the work-
day and experience with agile methods χ 2 (26, N = 227) = 39.25, p = 0.046. Thus,
users of agile methods spend more time on leadership.
We asked project managers without disciplinary responsibility and lateral man-
agers separately. We explained lateral leadership with examples, such as Scrum
Master. The background for this approach is that the term lateral leadership is
mainly known in the agile context, otherwise rather less. Both groups, i.e. the lat-
eral leaders and the project managers without disciplinary responsibility, spent
more time on leadership than the other groups. The average time spent on leader-
ship: 32.62%.
The exact results can be seen in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Mean values

Percentage leadership in the working day
Type of management responsibility Mean value H Standard deviation
Project Management, 32.65 44 24.558
Un-disciplinary
Project management, disciplinary 24.00 5 4.183
As an entrepreneur, also managing partner 32.18 44 25.436
Management (first level) 31.29 24 27.227
Division manager (second level) 37.90 39 24.661
Team management 34.46 44 22.582
Lateral guidance 35.42 13 26.596
No leadership 16.13 14 24.781
Total 32.62 227 24.707
As part of the survey, we also asked four questions about the Carol Dweck
mindset. We wanted to know whether the participants have a flexible (fixed) or a
development-oriented (growth) mindset. Most of the answers were in the moderate
range. Around 40% agreed with the statement “Everyone can learn new things, but
intelligence and characteristics cannot be decisively influenced”, while 60% dis-
agreed.
3.4.6.3 Interpretation of the Results

Values are often misunderstood as a basis for behavior. This is wrong. Values are
impulses for action, and there can be worlds between values and concrete work
actions – often without the person who is acting noticing this. In other words, the
fact that certain values were given preference in our study does not mean that the
participants also behave according to these values. While values are conscious and
verbally recallable, they do not have to guide action. However, values show that
something is preferred and considered good. I would call this value consciousness.
It says something like “this is how I want to be” or “this is what I find desirable”.
This value consciousness can be assigned to certain clusters that are aligned with
certain central themes, such as cooperation or flexibility. Agility requires a mix of
values as it combines structure, communication and goal orientation – so it is most
likely to be mapped into a both/and value mindset.
But: people who are familiar with agile methods tend to have an either-or value
consciousness more than others. Compared to the non-agile participants, the both/
and value cluster is chosen less often. This is probably the most interesting result,
which is initially puzzling, especially since there are no differences by manage-
ment level in this regard. How can this be? One possible explanation is that in an
agile environment less both/and is possible because the Scrum or Kanban methods
provide a process framework. It is also possible that there is less room for manoeu-
vre in an agile context – or that social desirability is higher. The cooperative (green)
value cluster gets the highest approval here, but the goal-oriented (orange) one can
also score. This corresponds to the idea that agile frameworks as process frame-
works are a kind of “walking aid” to more self-responsibility and communication
and thus lie in the green value cluster. However, agile process frameworks actually
tangent three value clusters from their “green” focus: structure and rules (blue)
organize communication and information flow (green). This provides the frame-
work for a different form of goal achievement that is broken down into smaller
steps (orange).
Participants who are less familiar with agile methods seem to have more often
the image of diversity of leadership in mind and less the ideal of leadership at eye
level. In our study, there was an above-average proportion of entrepreneurs and

higher-level managers, which certainly correlates with the author’s network and
could partly explain this flexible value attitude. While in the population as a whole
barely 10% are self-employed, in our study there were 16.5, and over 10% were at
first management level. In this case, managers have often already had various other
experiences and therefore possibly also experienced that one has to lead differently
and that not only one or the other, but both lead to success.
It is illuminating to look at answer profiles as a whole and compare the partici-
pant’s perspective with his or her answers. This reveals tendencies that also allow
conclusions to be drawn about the mindset. For this purpose, I have selected two
contradictory profiles showing the perspective of an entrepreneur and that of an
agile coach (Figs. 3.6 and 3.7).
Fig. 3.6 Entrepreneur profile
Fig. 3.7 Profile lateral guide

The entrepreneur profile (Fig. 3.6) shows that the person tends to think in a fixed
and tradition-oriented way. He puts routine and processes in the foreground and
does not believe that people can really change. The Lateral Leadership profile
(Fig. 3.7) shows a more open attitude, but also that apparently not all opportunities
for development-oriented leadership are yet used or the environment does not offer
this. We had calculated the correlations with leadership positions here and deter-
mined that division managers and senior managers in particular tended more to-
wards order. Those with agile experience still tended more towards flexibility. This
reflects behavioral preferences that repeatedly lead to problems in practice. We
experience that employees working in an agile manner expect fast and flexible
processes and repeatedly come up against limits, for example when they have to
deal with departments such as Legal or Finance, which rarely work in an agile
manner.
Another finding is that participants without leadership experience more often
prefer the collaborative style, while those with experience more often mention the
flexible style. This could be due to the fact that the inexperienced participants
would rather have this people-oriented team leadership out of their own experi-
ence, possibly as a contrast to the current leadership. Our practical experience says
that employees overwhelmingly think their bosses are “too anything”, usually too
authoritarian, less often too soft. The desire for more cooperation seems to be a
consistent countermovement.
Surprisingly, there was an overall tendency towards “the individual person” in
the value orientation according to opposite poles (see also Fig. 3.5) – in agile times,
however, the focus should clearly be on the team. All studies also point in this di-
rection. Here, a difference between Western and Northern European participants
can be observed.
We defined values as impulses for action. No pattern of action can be derived
from them. We therefore asked how much the participants live their values and
whether they question themselves – and how often. It can be assumed that people
who claim to always live their values are lying to themselves. Only 50% of partici-
pants question themselves “all the time,” and nearly 9% rarely do. 55% claim to
live their values a lot, 45% admit they do not always or do not really know.
That is surprisingly little, since self-reflection should be a matter of course for a
manager and self-reflection is linked to leadership success, as various studies sug-
gest. And it should be obvious that there is no such thing as either/or: Anyone who
has and lives values would have to feel paradoxes all the time, unless he fades them
out. There is no context in which expressed values are always unambiguously and
clearly followed. It can only be a permanent attempt to orient oneself to something.
Leaders are constantly confronted with paradoxes. Someone who is really

aware of this can therefore actually only tend towards unifying values, such as
those most likely to be depicted in “yellow”. However, the connecting both/and can
also become dogma.
Modern Values, but Developmental Thinking Is Missing

In this chapter we have looked at the mind-sets for leadership. In doing so, it
was important for me to show, based on the model of the four leadership direc-
tions, that each direction requires a different “basic attitude” of thinking. This is
of course determined not only by ego development, but also by personality, ex-
perience and the opportunities and limitations of the environment. We have
shown with our study that more and more leaders are aware that leadership
should not be thought of from certain, fixed values, but from the requirements
of the context. Particularly under conditions of digitalization, leadership
requires both-thinking-and-acting and situational adjustments to the context.
Especially under the influence of new ideas such as New Work and eye level,
many people give preference to cooperative values – and apparently do not see
that these do not allow for effective leadership without corresponding (e.g. goal
achievement) and sometimes apparently contradictory values (e.g. making clear
decisions). Especially in change situations, which are always accompanied by
unpleasant measures, the strong orientation towards cooperative values often
leads to rigidity or results in endless discussions.
In our study, we found that despite seemingly modern values, many leaders
still have a fixed mindset and that many reflect very little on themselves. This is
a glaring contradiction. From our perspective, contemporary leadership that
promotes self-organization and the assumption of responsibility cannot be
based on a fixed mindset and is in no way conceivable without deep self-
reflection. Such a leadership must also see that not only itself, but also its em-
ployees must develop and that no tools help in this, but above all open reflection
on itself and its own behavior in the context of the organization. This requires
feedback, but in a different way than we are used to – not in the sense of evalu-
ation à la “you did that well”, but in the sense of perception and encouragement
to include other aspects.
3.4.7 Interview with Anne M. Schüller
Anne M. Schüller is a German management thinker, keynote speaker, bestselling

author [7] and business coach. With a degree in business administration, she is
considered Europe’s leading expert on touchpoint management and customer-
focused business management. Website: www.anneschueller.de.
Agile Working – Characterized, for Example, by More Self-Organization –

also Requires People to Act in Contradictions. There Is Teamwork, but Then
Someone also Has to Decide Sometimes. Many People Find This Difficult to
Cope With. What Is Your Experience?
Schüller: I think that established companies will have to operate in “both/and”
scenarios for quite some time. This applies to business models as well as organiza-
tional structures, working methods, and management behavior. On the one hand,
they have to develop start-up qualities, i.e. they have to be innovative, agile and
willing to take risks on the market. On the other hand, they need to ensure the prof-
itability of their core activities in order to be able to meet their diverse obligations.
The current business must co-finance the innovations as long as one cannot live
from the latter. Internally, the same applies in principle: Various units are com-
pletely self-organized, others still operate more or less classically.
And What Does This Mean for Employee Management?

Schüller: For employee management, “both and” means: as much self-organization
as possible, as much central control as necessary. To achieve this, hierarchies are
flattened, but they are still minimally present, especially when it comes to strategic
decisions. Those who try to level hierarchies by force create a vacuum in which
hierarchies immediately re-emerge. Communities need systems of order, and every
start-up must learn this as soon as it grows. But no one needs a hydrocephalus.
Bureaucracy makes a company slow and stupid, because everything has to follow
a predefined path and sinks into rigid procedures. In times of exponential change,
this is deadly.
What Is the Best Way to Approach Increasing Self-Organisation?

Schüller: Self-organisation is best introduced in intermediate stages or sub-areas.
Trial phases are important so that both managers and employees can get used to the
new, unfamiliar situation. This kind of thing does not work off the cuff. Our brains
need to practice in order to excel. What is not trained goes wild like trails in the
forest. Quick wins, i.e. first experiences of success, are very important at the begin-
ning. A learning culture that is open to error and free of sanctions accompanies the
journey. Stage victories are celebrated. Under no circumstances should the pendu-
lum swing too abruptly or too radically in the direction of self-organisation, be-
cause this would quickly overwhelm older generations in particular.
Is There Something Like a 10-Point Program for This?

Schüller: No two companies are the same. Blueprints that could simply be copied
are even dangerous. After all, the fields of business and action are different in each
case. Size, country-specific conditions and ownership also play a role. At best, one
can orientate oneself on pioneers. There are now positive reports of experience
with self-managing structures from small, medium-sized and large organisations in
many countries and sectors. They can provide valuable food for thought. But you
should not blindly follow them and thoughtlessly emulate them. What works great
for one can fail magnificently elsewhere. Every company must find its own way,
experiment and try things out.
You Have Written a Lot About Gen Y, and Have Even Written a Joint Book
with a Representative of This Millennial Generation. How Does Their
Mindset Influence Leadership?
Schüller: Ambitious millennials are the ideal helpers for anyone embarking on the
transformation journey. If only they were more involved! They have long lived in a
digitally transformed cosmos. When they create working worlds, they are adapted
to it. Versatile in their interests, willing to learn and with a global outlook, they
recognize potential at lightning speed, can identify market differences and combine
solutions in a completely new way. They are experienced in dealing with constant
change in a self-organized manner. Making use of all this and much more, being
inspired by young thoughts, fresh ideas and future-proof procedures, that’s what
makes the difference between the future high-flyers of the economy and the rest.
References
1. Svenja, Hofert. 2009. Jeder gegen Jeden. München: Redline.
2. Hofert, Svenja. 2016 and 2020. (3rd edition). Agile Leadership. Wiesbaden: Springer
Gabler.
3. Kotter, John P. 2012. Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
4. Davidson, Richard. 2016. Warum regst du dich so auf? München: Goldmann.
5. Forum gute Führung/Bundesministerium für Arbeit. 2016. Führungskultur im Wandel.
Führungskultur im Wandel, Erhebung aufgrund von 400 Tiefeninterviews. https://www.
inqa.de/SharedDocs/PDFs/DE/Publikationen/fuehrungskultur-im-wandel-monitor.pdf.
Zugegriffen: 30. Juli 2017.
References 133
6. Laloux, Frédéric. 2014. Reinventing Organizations. Brussels: Nelson Parker.

7. Schüller, Anne M. 2017. Fit für die Next Economy: Zukunftsfähig mit den Digital Natives.
Weinheim: Wiley.
8. Beck, Don E., and Christopher C. Cowan. 2007. Spiral Dynamics –Masterin Values,
Leadership and Change, Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
9. Dweck, Carol. 2001. Test Mindset and articlesMindset, u. a. “Mindset for Business and
Leadership”. https://mindsetonline.com/howmindsetaffects/businessleadership/index.
html. Zugegriffen: 5. Okt. 2017.
10. Kanning, Uwe-Peter und Philipp, Fricke. 2013. Führungserfahrung: Wie nüt-
zlich ist sie wirklich? https://www.dgfp.de/hr-wiki/F%C3%BChrungserfahrung__
Wie_n%C3%BCtzlich_ist_sie_wirklich_.pdf. Zugegriffen: 5. Okt. 2017.
11. Kibéd, Matthias Varga. 2008. Basics der Systemischen Strukturaufstellungen: Eine
Anleitung für Einsteiger und Fortgeschrittene. München: Kösel.
12. Vaupel, Mario. 2011. Rising Stars. Welche Mindsets zukünftige Führung braucht.
Wirtschaftspsychologie aktuell 2011(1). http://www.wirtschaftspsychologie-aktuell.de/
rising-stars.pdf. Zugegriffen: 30. Juli 2017.
13. Vaupel, Mario. 2008. Leadership Asset System: Von den Herausforderungen der Führung
zur Steuerung der Führungsperformance. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Mind-Change: Changing the Way
We Think and Act 4
Leadership in today’s world is no longer bound to a hierarchy. It can come

from different directions and be guided by conscious values. However, these
are less relevant for the agile mindset than the - usually unconscious - logic of
thought and action. We know now: The development of feeling and thinking
follows a logic. The radius of thoughts becomes larger and larger, the subject
goes smaller, the object becomes bigger. First, we orient ourselves to the other
person - and finally to group and society. The possibilities for adaptive action
increase, the behavioural repertoire fills up. It is as if people with a mature
mindset see more and more aspects and context. For coping with organisa-
tional challenges and against the background of digitalisation, it is good if we
can see more, recognise more, draw connections and process more. But this
now leads to a practical question: If we cannot find and recruit people with a
flexible mindset in sufficient numbers - what then? Can this mindset be trans-
formed by consciously influencing and creating and changing framework con-
ditions? In this chapter, I describe the approaches that can be taken to achieve
this. In doing so, I separate the level of the organisation (Sect. 4.1.) and that of
the individual (Sect. 4.2), although both naturally interact in the end.
Is it possible to train mindset? Is it possible to change the logic of feeling, thinking

and acting? Those who believe in their own changeability, in the sense of Carol
Dweck, will be more open to it than those who do not. However, it is not enough to
train “knowledge” about changeability. There are a number of people who know
something because they have learned it. But they cannot derive any action from it.

136 4 Mind-Change: Changing the Way We Think and Act
They would pass any theoretical test, but in practical application they fail. This is
what I mean. Knowing something does not mean deriving an action based on it.
The logic of thought is not necessarily that of action. Nor vice versa.
Knowledge can therefore be learned, but not internalized. Conversations and in-
terviews can therefore be deceptive. Someone who appears to be very eloquent and
well-read quickly passes as a suitable Mindset candidate. In free associative narra-
tive, prompted by structured questions, a trained interviewer is much more likely to
recognize how someone thinks. For this purpose, I present two questionnaires in the
last chapter. You have also previously been given examples of texts that reflect think-
ing. Now, building on this, I would like to show you concrete approaches to promote
agile thinking in yourself and others. Many experts are of the opinion that compa-
nies do not have the task of developing people. I see it differently. Companies al-
ready influence their employees in their development. Employees pay attention to
their company. Companies allow opportunities, limit, measure, give feedback. All of
this has an effect on the brain. With this in mind, it is illusory to assume that an
employee in a company can stay the way they are in a static sense. Already the time,
space and financial framework that companies give shapes. The company shapes the
emotional experience of its employees. In it, family patterns and relationships repeat
themselves, for example when a manager always looks for the same type of assistant
or the assistant always looks for the same type of boss. Here, “shadows” also dis-
solve when one becomes aware of these things.
Yes, I would go further: When people accept other people for who they are, they
affect them just as much as if they did not. Let me give you an example: You, as an
HR developer, decide to have a development conversation with an employee. You
point out opportunities to the employee that they have not seen for themselves be-
fore. This draws the employee’s attention to new aspects. Had you not made this
decision and had the conversation, the employee may have gone to an event that
day that would have opened their eyes to something completely different. Either
way, you have influenced the employee - by taking active action as much as by do-
ing nothing. It is illusory to think only direct action influences. Indirect inaction
does too. So we are never absolved from always deciding (or leading, after all,
means successfully influencing). Just as our counterpart must always decide and is
responsible for whether an influence action is successful or not. He can react to an
action with “Enter” or “Delete”. He can also ignore it or push it into the buffer for
“wait”. But in any case, EVERY action as well as non-action affects. Accepting
something affects the rest of your life just as much as rejecting something.
Accepting or rejecting or ignoring is like left and right. You may end up with the
same result. But maybe there can be better results by being more conscious of the
interplay of influencing and letting things go.
4.1 The Organization as a Mind Changer 137
But it may not matter whether you go left or right if your life goes in circles.
Then, through one decision or the other, you end up in the same place. Therefore,
whichever way I turn it, I always come back to the same point: we will always
influence others, even by not influencing them. It is therefore up to us to decide
which principle we apply to make decisions - such as making the decision actively,
that is, to influence the thinking of others and their development through conscious
action, to widen and open their thinking. However, whatever we decide, we should
start with ourselves.
And ask ourselves: What guides us?
4.1 The Organization as a Mind Changer
Organizations set the pace. They control how far someone can think. In part, they do
this without formal rules - simply through the culture. In this culture, lateral thinking
and thinking differently are frowned upon. It is quite possible, however, that a com-
pany is committed to lateral thinking, but unconsciously weeds out lateral thinkers.
This is a part of the normal contradictions of the corporate world. That is why you
should never look at what is said and what can be read, but at what is observable. It
is not about eliminating contradictions or matching desired values to lived ones. That
will never succeed. It is rather a matter of communicating what is there, including
contradictions inherent in the system. And these exist not only in the individual, but
also in the organization. From a systemic point of view, there are always overlapping
contexts of expectations, for example between team and organization. The person
who moves in both contexts is stuck in a multiple contexts. Being aware of this is
helpful in dealing with it. And also for dealing with organizational feedback.
The Environment Determines the Perspective

Harald was described to me by the HR department as a complete loser. He had
got into the management programme by chance and, from today’s point of view,
was not suitable as a manager. At most, he was entitled to the status of a consul-
tant and should leave the company. I worked with Harald for several years, he
became a department manager in another company and is now a board member
there. His thinking corresponded to the flexible-mode when he was kicked out.
He developed into Flexibel-Plus. In the original company, he had been in the
wrong place with his relativizing and analyzing manner as well as his way of
integrating communication. Leadership had a very different connotation there. A
strong leader decided without asking much. Asking was a sign of weakness. In
the new company it was different. With his way he was very successful there.
This example shows that it is by no means the case that mature thinking is also
recognized as such and can dock. On the contrary, it can be interpreted as weak-
ness. It is therefore almost impossible for such thinking to unfold in systems where
the authoritative decision-makers follow an earlier logic. Only managers in the
well-trained effective mode can not only think but also implement both/and. In ad-
dition, there is the cultural imprint. The laws of group dynamics still apply. A group
is something quite different from the sum of its individual personalities. It can ac-
complish significantly more than an individual could, as well as significantly less.
For our topic this means:
• People with a flexible mindset are often not even recognizable as such.
• Teams can develop a flexible mindset that individual employees do not have.
This is similar to IQ. A group can achieve feats that would require a high IQ even
though the individual team members all have average IQs. A team can produce
post-conventional thoughts even though the individual members do not think post-
conventionally.
But the likelihood that a thought leader accepted by the group and socialized in
the company will influence its logic is high - if this is supported by the organiza-
tion, officially or informally. It also helps if the organization embraces agile think-
ing by setting itself up as a learning organization and introducing metacommunica-
tion. This is best done from the top, through senior management, but also from the
middle, such as through culture change teams. Something can also emerge from
below, when employees join forces to develop something new.
Despite all the effort, there remains a considerable inertia in the corporate mind-
set; previous logics often find their way back after initial successes. This is espe-
cially true for companies that have little or no competitive pressure. Their inertia is
often greater because there is no immediate threat.
It takes a lot of consistency and strong leadership for change to succeed. If the
leadership has changed frequently and always brought in a new course, this is even
more difficult. Those who have had the experience that something is this way today
and that way tomorrow will quickly give into a persistent attitude.
The driving forces of change, above all the top management, must be able to
establish themselves as persons in the system. They must be seen and accepted as
“heroes”, not perceived as a breeze that brushes over something without really
touching it.
Visibility is important. If a leader shows himself often and is close, he achieves
more. The time factor also plays a significant role: changes take time, that of think-
ing even more than others: 2–3 years. This is a problem for groups with changing
top management. Typically, top management initiates a new course in a crisis,

while the people who shape the system remain with the company. They carry on the
change inconsistently, often because they know that a new course will come in a
few years, or because they do not have the right mindset or are simply not moti-
vated. Expensive training measures thus fizzle out because the system will find a
way to continue to act according to its logic, even if this may be restricted by new
rules.
In this respect, a family entrepreneur has an easier time initiating change. At
least if he can act consistently and is not held back by other family members. In the
next chapters, I will give three different examples for the introduction of an agile
mindset:
• The Broba Group (5000 employees) wants to become more agile in order to be
able to react more quickly to customer needs. For him, this is a question of sur-
vival.
• Software company Musmore (250 employees) is seemingly agile, but employ-
ees want structure and rules. Above all, it is about employee health.
• The care service provider Helpme (120 employees) wants to bring more self-
organisation into the company. Only through more effectiveness can the com-
pany remain competitive.
I describe the procedures of these three companies. If you would like to learn from
them, I advise you to first work with the questionnaire that I have printed on page
89 f. in order to determine how great the pressure to change is in the first place.
Then you should look at the degree of maturity (from page 156).
4.1.1 Defining Common Understanding
“We want to become more agile” - this phrase has been circulating in many com-
panies for some time. “Agile” can be replaced by other buzzwords, such as “digital
leadership”. We also often hear the word “digital mindset”.
But we always run into the same problems and issues: The companies that hire
us are looking for “methods”, but do not see that you first have to define what it is
all about. Therefore, the very first thing I recommend is to deal with the common
understanding of terminology. What does it mean when we understand agile? What
expectations do we attach to it? Do we think it will make everything faster and
more flexible? Then we are thinking wrong. The topic of common understanding is
infinitely important. And that goes for mindset as well. If you decide to work with
my model, it must be transparent to everyone. If you decide to define Mindset dif-

ferently, that is fine too - it just needs to be as clear as day. There’s a simple test you
can do: If a consultant asks a sample of 10–12 employees in the company, what
answers will he get to the question how a company defines an “agile mindset” (or
mindset in general). Only if everyone answers the same should you think about
further actions in culture change. The common understanding can come along with
the experience of something new, but it should definitely not be forgotten. It should
also not be taught theoretically, but embedded. The best way to do this is to define
specific behavioral expectations, such as “for us, the appropriate mindset is demon-
strated by the leader actively seeking feedback and openly reflecting on their own
development.” A shared understanding is also not something that should be set in
stone, quite the opposite. If you link it with agility, it cannot be a “product” that is
finished at some point, but only a project that develops.
cc Word Clouds and their Meaning I like to talk about word clouds when
it comes to buzzwords. This is more positive, because these also have
something good. The fact that not everyone understands the same
thing by a term also connects. It creates emotional cohesion. That is
especially important for the first phase in the culture change, because it
puts you in a mood of optimism. Yes, something new is coming and
there is a term for this new thing! But as important as this phase is, the
concretization that follows is at least as important. And it requires in-
depth knowledge. If you know little about agility, you can imagine little
and thus contribute little to the concretization. For me, three phases
have proven themselves: (1) the word cloud party brings employees to-
gether, (2) the learning phase deepens knowledge, (3) the definition
phase concretizes and formulates a common understanding.
4.1.2 Feedback as a Central Building Block for Everything
The second point is just as fundamental and is often just as consistently ignored.
Again and again, I see that the feedback culture in companies lies fallow - but the
managers do not see it that way at all. This is the case even in agile environments,
where, for example, with Kudu cards (colorful forms from the so-called
“Management 3.0” - often “thank you” is said and appreciation is anchored. But
appreciation is just not the same as feedback. I think it is great when teams work
with such cards and the atmosphere there is often three times better than else-
where - but if you want to develop employees and leadership, that’s not enough.
Then it must also be a matter of questioning oneself again and again, of adopt-
ing new perspectives and, if necessary, integrating them into oneself - the self-
actualization already mentioned more often. This must happen in all appreciation,
but there must be no false consideration - but that is almost always the case when a
system also “evaluates”. So the first step in introducing a good feedback culture is
a commitment to development - and this is quite revolutionary if we take our idea
of mindset as a basis. Traditional HR development works like this: it identifies
what competencies the company or position needs and then measures who best
meets that. If there are discrepancies between requirements and “actual competen-
cies”, training measures take place.
From the point of view of some representatives of the new “eye level” move-
ment, personnel development is superfluous, because everyone is the way they are
and should be valued for who they are. Both views are correct, but one-sided.
People are not finished and they remain standing if they are not challenged. But
development is not only about competencies. If companies declare “we also want
to promote personal development” then this has consequences for all measures and
of course for management, but above all for the type of feedback that must then be
given - this must be conducive to development.
My feedback levels help companies to grasp the differences and to recognize
their own location. I orientate myself here on the colours of Spiral Dynamics.
However, you can also assign my mindsets to the feedback levels: Orange is
Effective with a focus on Goal Orientation, Green is Effective with a focus on
Cooperation (structurally on one level, with Loevinger it would be E6). Yellow
1 is Flexible and Yellow 2 Flexible Plus. You can also think of it as building on
each other, although I would change the order in such a process: At the begin-
ning there would be “green”, that is, appreciative feedback, preferably com-
bined with some measurability. Only when this is established is the yellow level
next, whereby “Yellow 2” is only possible and meaningful with very mature and
reflective people (Fig. 4.1).
So, if you are really interested in mind-change, first of all look at how feedback
is handled in your company. Feedback that promotes development requires a
growth mindset and never involves evaluation, but only observation and outlook.
Example
“I have noticed that you ask a lot more questions and also listen. I find that very
helpful. I think that you could pay a little more attention to the non-verbal signs.
For example, I noticed that Mr. X looked a little startled the other day when you
asked him about his family situation. Do you remember?”
Fig. 4.1 Feedback levels

If assessment is integrated, it should only be scaled and this scaling should be done
as a self-assessment - and as concretely as possible. However, development-related
feedback can certainly call this self-assessment into question.
Example
“How would you rate your ability to pick up and describe nonverbal cues?”
Employee A: “On a scale of 0 to 10, maybe a 3.” You: “What would a 10 indi-
cate?” Employee A: “I would pause more often and be open about my observa-
tion. That would mean I would be less focused on myself... I’m a little afraid of
that.” So in this example, you would directly have a “coaching template” as
well. What triggers this fear? What belief system is behind it? Talking about it
requires a lot of trust, but you can be sure that it is the most effective way to
bring about change. But: When working like this on a company level, it only
works in a corresponding culture and when development is explicitly anchored -
also what development means, namely the deep look also into oneself.
Feedback promotes reflection, especially if it is clear and deep. In our trainings,

we have therefore introduced the “feedback of feedback” to promote one’s own
feedback competence. Correct feedback helps to better perceive one’s own im-
pulses and at the same time to reflect on one’s behaviour. It therefore also orders
processes in the brain as Fig. 4.2 illustrates.
Fig. 4.2 Good feedback improves impulse control and increases reflection
4.1.3 Determining Location with the Polarities of Belief
The third step is to deal with the corporate mindset. In the chapter on “Leadership”
I have already taken up the belief polarities in order to introduce systemic thinking.
Here, I would like to derive the whole thing practically, because the belief polari-
ties in their triad are also very well suited to initiate a mind-change. They can also
be applied at the level of the individual, the team and the organization alike. They
can also be aligned specifically to the agile context.
A triangle is built in the room, for example, with adhesive tape or simply by
marking the corners with moderation cards. The corners symbolize the poles order,
knowledge and relationship. Other terms can also be chosen here with which an
organisation identifies itself. It is always about word fields that include other re-
lated terms. Instead of pole, I like to use the term door, because it’s easy to imagine
going through doors to decide something. That’s what it should be about - the way
a company makes its decisions, informally as well as formally, and which decision
dominates in the end.
If the focus is on agility, for example in the question “How do we live agile
ideas?”, I let the group find them themselves, only supporting with ideas if nothing
comes from the group itself.
Order/agility examples:
• Rules
• Visualization
• Role clarity
• Processes
Binding/agility examples:
• Socializing
• Retrospectives
• All Hands
• Feedback culture
Cognition/agility examples:
• Information exchange
• Professionalism
• external excitation
• Learning company
As I said, these are word fields that are to be occupied quite individually. The goal
is, on the one hand, to determine through which entrance door a team prefers to go,
whether there is a balance at this door and whether the three sides are also bal-
anced. On the other hand, the goal is to recognize what is missing and should be
strengthened or weakened. Love is also trust, order is also regulation, knowledge is
practical and/or theoretical knowledge. And of course much more!
The context decides the exact terms. For example, a company or team could
also choose the triad of trust, structure and knowledge.
A company that moves gallantly between these poles is a company in balance.
However, in my experience, there is no such balanced company. There is always a
culturally determined “main entrance door.” What lies at that door can be healthy
and positive or over the top. So each of the poles can once again be split into two:
It is lived positively or it is congealed.
If knowledge is frozen, then experts discuss themselves into the void and no
longer move a step forward. When order is frozen, formalization prevents any
movement. When relationship is frozen, there is no further movement because of
all the cronyism.
This belief polarity constellation according to Matthias Varga von Kibéd [1] is
particularly suitable as a systemic triad to make opposites clear and to connect
perspectives. A free element stands above the opposites and can overcome them: It
is called wisdom. And what leads to it? Knowledge. In other words, the learning
organization.
With the constellation open and also some hidden values can be revealed and
beliefs can be made visible and modified. One can, for example, list further ele-
ments that present obstacles and have to do with one or the other pole. Such an ele-
ment could be the lack of trust or the rigid regulation. Elements can be symbolized
by cushions or stools or even other shaped moderation cards.
Every system has its basic assumptions, what it considers good and right. These
basic assumptions are reflected in the poles of the triad. Each aspect can continue
to tip over into a negative imprint through overemphasis. Order then becomes ri-
gidity, cognition becomes knowledge-principle riding, and bonding becomes, for
example, rope teams or cliques.
If one corner of the triad is neglected, difficulties and problems arise. A system
can even get out of control if something overdominates. The way it is presented can
make this tangible.
4.1.3.1 When to Carry Out?

The belief polarity constellation is suitable for the beginning of a change process.
It could be derived from a kickoff workshop, for example. It makes clear what cur-
rently is, shows the location. It also clarifies which entrance doors (poles) a com-
pany is using - and what is missing if additional elements are set up. This helps to
see not only imbalances, but also next steps more concretely. By walking and
standing in the room, the whole thing is emotional. With a single person you can
also do this constellation with wooden figures and a systemic board.
4.1.3.2 Carry out with Whom?

You should have some experience in systemic constellation work. You can do the
belief polarity constellation with the leadership circle, if the number of employees
allows it, with the whole company or with individual departments or teams. Who
makes the beginning is open: It can be interesting for the leadership circle to see
how employees position themselves before they line themselves up. But it can also
be helpful to first see the distribution among the decision-makers.
4.1.3.3 How to Perform?
Label three large round facilitation cards in different colours with the three poles
(doors) of order, insight and commitment or agile “alternatives”. Involve the group
in the choice of words. If necessary, open up word fields, that is, assign others to
the head terms.
Lay out the facilitation cards as a triangle in the room. Position cards of the
same colour with them and pens. Place a fourth, round card in the middle, which
you turn over so that the participants cannot read what is written on it (“Wisdom”).
This should be given another colour so that it stands out.
Now moderate the triad by explaining its mathematical and philosophical sig-
nificance. In particular, also explain that in an equilateral triangle there are any
number of other triangles that are set up the other way round.
Now ask what door the company goes through when it:
• the day-to-day work is done,

• is changing (as it is now),
• developed his visions,
• sets up its strategies,
• goals defined,
• hires new employees,
• employees developed,
• provides cohesion,
• etc.
Vary these questions when it comes to agility understanding:
• How do we conduct our stand-ups?

• What are the retrospectives characterized by?
• How do our all-hands meetings work? Which pole dominates?
• etc.
Through which door does the company usually go to do something? The list can be
extended at will and can also refer to individual departments. As you introduce the
areas, employees can go from one corner to the other, but probably will find a fo-
cus, which may also be between two doors.
Let the employees talk about what exactly this looks like in everyday life and
why, for example, one pole is seen less or this entrance door is used less often.
What field is missing, what needs to be tapped into, as the next little triangle with
the poles reversed? Which corner should the company be beckoning to open up to
more balance? What decisions need to be made to achieve this? As I said, all of this
is also doable on a team and individual level.
Now you can move on to specific actions. Maybe the order has to bring in
the binding. One measure could then be, for example, a day of networking.
Perhaps the binding must also approach the cognition. A concrete measure de-
rived from this could then be to bring more knowledge into the company
through a series of specialist lectures and new employees. It is important that
the measures are collected at the end and that the realization is discussed.
Possibly tandems or trios can be formed to further develop the ideas. But
maybe this is the second part of a workshop. Discuss with the employees
whether the poles are in balance or have already tipped into their exaggeration,
that is, structure has become rigidity, for example. What does this mean for the
company, the department, the team?
At the end, point to the triangle in the middle and ask what that could be that
brings everything into a positive balance. Probably no one comes up with wisdom,
by turning around the concept anchors more sustainable.
Discuss what a wise company, department or team might look like and what the
next steps are to get there. Ideally, a working group will emerge from such a format
to further develop the thoughts gained. Possibly this is also a next workshop that
should be planned now.
4.1.4 Recognizing Communication Architecture
Whether agility can work or not is above all also dependent on the communication
architecture of a company. This point can also come before the location analysis; it
can also be seen as part of it.
By communication architecture I mean the “construction” and interplay of all
interactions that take place in a company: Between divisions, departments and
teams and all interfaces. How are decisions made here, what processes are in-
volved? This can be recorded, but for this you should talk to many employees, be-
cause they are the ones who fill the interactions with life. The informal level should
also always be considered. The communication architecture does not have to have
anything to do with the organization chart. It is it that counts. You can also tell user
stories, as they are known from Scrum. What do people do when decisions are
made? This makes the picture much clearer. Example: “Whenever we want a legal
opinion, the legal department asks for a written request. She blocks telephone re-
quests. She won’t give a legal opinion without first hiring an outside law firm.”
Often, cutting problems also become clear in this way. If a real map of the inter-
actions emerges, it will be a source of discussion, but also an eye-opener. Now you
can work together to change these interactions by revising the decision-making
premises. If the legal department has to act without a form and no longer has to
engage an external law firm, and is also obliged to respond verbally within a certain
period of time, this will lead to protests - but it will change the communication ar-
chitecture more sustainably than any communication workshop.
In many companies, communication is misdirected. It relates to the defense of
areas and budgets and less to the common product, product or service. If this be-
comes visible through such a map, communications can also be “rebuilt”. However,
this requires that it is wanted from the top and implemented consistently. Back and
forth - it does not work here.
cc Conway’s Law Computer scientist Melvin Edward Conway first formu-

lated his law in 1968, stating that a product design reflects internal sys-
tems and collaboration. So if products appear to be made from a single
mould, it is highly likely that many people have worked together inten-
sively internally. The assumption behind this is that something uniform
must be based on fruitful communication and interaction, while prod-
ucts that consist of different elements or diverse products of a company
are most likely the result of less communication-intensive collabora-
tion.
The Harvard Business Review confirmed the assumption, which

was originally based purely on observation. Further studies followed
and fleshed out the assumptions. Conway says that changing a prod-
uct also requires changing the communication architecture. This is
true even when components are developed that are independent of
each other but interdependent. Complications can arise here if the
interfaces do not function properly - and this applies in both the tech-
nical and the communication sense. Whereby the lack of communica-
tion is responsible for errors or technological disharmonies and not
vice versa.
Above all, the following lesson can be learned from this: Team-
work requires a particularly high level of communication if a joint
product is to be created. The more complex the product, the more
must be invested in interface communication. The recommendation
is to create a communication architecture that mirrors the product
architecture.
4.1.5 Determining the Agile Maturity Level
What logic do managers, teams and employees follow? Our maturity model helps
with the assessment, especially the self-assessment. This is also a form of location
determination, which can precede the other points on.
The organization as a system is “responsible” for the maturity of the work-
force - that is, of management and employees - but teams and departments can
develop very differently in one and the same company. Responsible means both
consciously and unconsciously responsible, planned - for example, through human
resources development - or resulting from coincidences and different contexts.
One consequence of this is that there can be mature and immature teams as well
as divisions in an organization. So you should look at the smaller units. The orga-
nization provides the framework. The logic of this framework is formative for all
areas. The framework can enable and limit. That is why I usually explore this in
structured interviews before an action.
I have already presented the maturity level grid in “Agile Leadership” [2], here
I extend the presentation to the topic of self-organization and give more concrete
application notes and guiding questions. The agile maturity level also reveals
thought and action logics in an overarching context. It is not identical with ego
development: an individual, even in leadership, can behave in a downwardly com-

patible manner, that is, show “less” mindset due to the environment.
In our experience, the grid is well suited for work in a workshop, provided
that there is trust. It has proven successful that participants first make a written
assessment and then transfer this to a grid on a flipchart or a moderation wall, for
example.
If the corporate culture does not (yet) allow open feedback, you can also have
employees fill out questionnaires anonymously. Employees or the team should as-
sess the management, the management should assess the employees individually or
the team as a whole. We have two different questionnaires for this purpose: One is
suitable if it is a matter of real teamwork, with a joint product at the end. The other
is suitable if the employees largely have their own areas of responsibility and no
joint product is created.
Figure 4.3 shows what the maturity grid looks like in its raw form. They com-
bine the assessment of the leadership with the assessment of the employee(s) or
team.
4.1.5.1 Management Level
1. Can your leader inspire goals, positions and approaches while engaging both
individuals and the group?
2. Does your manager talk openly about his or her own development and change,
does he or she also address a change from previous positions and convictions?
3. Does your manager have no problem admitting mistakes, even his own, without
subsequent justification?
4. Does your manager give open and growth-oriented feedback, that is, does he or
she primarily focus on your development?
5. Can your manager explain in a comprehensible way why contradictory behav-
iour and also changes of course are sometimes necessary in the company, that
is, does he or she address paradoxes?
6. Does your leader seek out strong and dissenting personalities for their teams,
without fear of losing power or opposing positions?
7. Is your leader tangibly concerned with the company and not himself in all deci-
sions?
8. Does your manager maintain contacts with various stakeholders and others in
the company?
9. Does your manager encourage your autonomy and strive to delegate as much
responsibility as possible?
Fig. 4.3 Maturity grid

Give points per question. The following applies here:
• 0 = nothing is applicable
• 1 = largely not applicable
• 2 = partially applicable
• 3 = applies predominantly
• 4 = all strongly true
Add up all the points. Then divide the points by 4. The result is a number between
0 and 9 (where 0 is an unlikely result, which almost sounds like “punish”; think of
a “1” here). Find the appropriate box for this in the maturity grid and combine it
with the team view or the view on individuals. The maximum number of points is
36. Example: You have 24 points. Divided by 4, the result is 6.5.
The questions need the external description, because from experience managers
usually attribute the statements to themselves more than employees. However, the
questionnaire can also be a good basis for leadership development.
As a consultant, you can also look for a cross-section of people to answer the
questions. The questions are aimed at managers who lead from above, that is, usu-
ally disciplinary superiors. The catalog is less appropriate for lateral leadership. If
the team is led laterally, questions 1–5 would be relevant.
The maximum score is then 20, which is equivalent to a 9 grid. After that, go
back at intervals of 2 points each:
• 20–19 = 9
• 18–17 = 8
• 16–15 = 7
• 14–13 = 7
• 12–11 = 6
• 10–9 = 5
• 8–7 = 4
• 6–5 = 3
• 4–3 = 2
• 2–1 = 1
4.1.5.2 Employee Level
The questions about the employee instead of the questions about the team should
be asked when employees are solving their tasks on their own, no matter if they are
experts or clerks.
If teams are working together on a product, please select the team questions:
1. Does the employee exhibit a wide range of possible behaviors and does he or
she adjust behavior based on context and situation?
2. Does the employee actively seek feedback and want to learn? Can he give feed-
back in an equally positive and growth-oriented way?
3. Can the employee rethink and reevaluate his or her behavior?
4. Does the employee understand the organizational paradoxes?
5. Does the employee show extra-productive behaviour, that is, does he act in the
interests of the company?
6. Does the employee maintain contacts with various stakeholders and others in
the company to share information?
7. Does the employee make comprehensible decisions and does he involve col-
leagues appropriately?
8. Can the employee align with short, medium and long term goals simultane-
ously?
9. Is the employee capable of cooperation, in the sense that he or she works to-
gether with others in the sense of the company’s goal, taking into account and
recognizing mutual strengths and competencies?
• 0 = nothing is applicable
• 1 = largely not applicable
At the end, divide the points by 4. The result is a number between 0 and 9. Find
the appropriate box for this in the maturity level grid and combine it with the
leadership view. “0” is very unlikely as a score, for this please think of “1” in the
grid. For example, 18 points, that is, 4.5 in the end. Together with the leadership,
this would result in a combination of 6.5 for the manager to 4.5 for the employee,
see Fig. 4.4.
You can also go through several employees on these and average them out at the
end.
Fig. 4.4 Maturity grid with example marker

4.1.5.3 Team Level
I recommend the questions about the team, if there is a common product created in
the collaboration. That is, when several people are working on something together.
Provided that everyone has their delimited area, it is more the individuals that
should be looked at. There are grey areas and overlaps: Customer service is on the
one hand the activity of individuals, on the other hand the common result is the
quality of customer service. The more advanced self-organisation is, the more ob-
vious this becomes. There is a kind of continuum between focus on the individual
and focus on the team. So sometimes you will answer both areas and may come up
with different scores.
Please give the answers as a whole for a team. For example, not everyone needs
to have business knowledge, but a person’s existing knowledge should be known
and used. Please keep in mind that what we call mindset here always includes
thinking and acting. So it is not enough that understanding of something is there
(thinking), concrete actions must also be derived from it. The questions are also a
good basis for joint meta-reflection, guided by the question of what something
shows itself to be and what it is not. For example, if a team is not paradox aware,
the first step might be to keep the paradoxes in mind, for example: “On the one
hand, we are supposed to act autonomously - on the other hand, we are supposed
to coordinate.”
1. Is the team aware of paradoxes and can they move appropriately even if the
situation is not always clear?
2. Does the team possess, recognise and use room for manoeuvre for its own deci-
sions?
3. Does the team see itself as a community of learners and does it communicate
learning? Is the learning related to technical content and to the cooperation as a
whole?
4. Is the team technically competent and also managerially capable of making
decisions, and does it use appropriate and different methods for decision-
making?
5. Can everyone in the team take situational leadership (in the sense of determin-
ing the direction of movement and exerting influence at critical moments) and
does so on their own initiative or in consultation with the others?
6. Is the team looking for the best solution with the organizational context in mind
rather than what is right and wrong?
7. Is the team able to set itself goals and to justify, adjust and optimise them objec-
tively and appropriately?
8. Can the team comply with organisational and team rules, modify rules or justifi-
ably break rules?
9. Is the team in active and fruitful exchange with other stakeholders in the com-
pany to develop themselves and others?
• 1 = does not apply at all

At the end, divide the points by 4. The result is a number between 1 and 9. Find the
appropriate box for it in the maturity grid and combine it with the view on leader-
ship.
This creates a position in the grid that gives clues as to what a possible approach
and measures might be. However, the distances should be seen as a rough guide
and not a fixed figure. It is possible that social desirability plays into the responses.
If you are the consultant in charge of the grid, ask questions using the STAR tech-
nique: situation, task, action and results. There should be enough examples on the
table here to illustrate.
4.1.5.4 Mindset for Self-Organisation

With the maturity level you can determine to what extent a team is ready for self-
organization. We distinguish between three levels of self-organization. In the first
stage, the team members assume responsibility for their product, but not yet the
business management framework. This means that the team assumes technical
tasks, but not yet management.
This makes sense in contexts in which quite classic structures still prevail and
the team members also do not have the necessary business knowledge or there are
no cross-functional teams (in which team members contribute this knowledge). In
order to introduce level 1 self-organization, the maturity level of the team should
be appropriate. I often experience that teams are given too much responsibility too
early, for example, also for hiring and vacation planning. With immature, less re-
flective employees, this can lead to the dominant alphas quickly asserting them-
selves (alphas do not need formal power) and egoisms making room.
Level 2 requires that the team is also able to set its own goals, whereby it also
sets the benchmarks. This is only possible with cross-functional teams or if the
necessary management knowledge is also in the team in addition to the technical

knowledge.
Level 3 is the high-performance level. These teams are able to challenge them-
selves and work to become better and better. This requires a very high level of
professionalism and usually also a lot of professional years. Such teams, in my
experience, also no longer need a fixed framework through agile methods. These
are more relevant for level 1 and perhaps 2, as they create the appropriate struc-
tures.
You already know our model for orientation from page 126. Here we take up the
value clusters that we also used in our study. The more self-organization, the more
we should assume a yellow (flexi style) culture.
In the model, I have anchored the self-leadership ABC, which I present after-
wards.
4.1.5.5 Self-Leadership ABC
In the chapter on leadership (page 125), I introduced self-leadership as a central
tool for mindset development. Now you will receive a complementary practical
model, which we call the ABC of Self-Leadership (Fig. 4.5). It builds on the matu-
rity model and is based on the idea that effective self-organization requires people
who can lead themselves. Here, these are the people who can play the “C” in this
model of self-leadership.
Fig. 4.5 Example of a paradox in an organizational analysis

We have learned in connection with ego development that self-leadership re-

quires thinking at Level 6 or the Effective stage. The ABC shows how to bring
people closer to this thinking and thus to self-leadership via developmental mea-
sures.
The first step is self-knowledge. This includes, for example, understanding how
I am myself - and how others are. When people are not very reflective, just realiz-
ing “I am different from” can be groundbreaking. “Yes, differences are normal,
desired, the world needs them!” Not only understanding that, but embracing it can
help a lot.
Dealing with strengths can be an important step in this phase. The development
in “A” corresponds - very roughly speaking - to the development from stage 4 (We-
phase) to a 5 (Right-phase). The more people still think in terms of community, the
harder it is for them to see characteristics that set themselves apart from others.
After recognizing that these differences exist, the focus is on strengthening indi-
viduality. This also makes it easier to set oneself apart, to say no.
Self-awareness is a next step. It presupposes that one can perceive one’s needs
and take them into account in one’s actions. Those who sense within themselves
learn to articulate needs, but also to draw boundaries and to communicate. This is
close - very simplified, of course - to a stage 5 (or Right Stage) in ego development,
which develops into stage 6 (Effective Stage). In this stage, needs can be focused
on that are closely linked to emotions. What do I perceive? What do I want to do
when I listen to myself?
Self-development is what can take place in stage 6. Now developmental feed-
back comes into play - to become better oneself and to follow one’s own standards.
In this step, it helps a lot to be aware of and reflect on your own paradoxes. “I’m
not a power person, I’m a power person”, such one-sided self-perceptions were
helpful with A and B and now get in the way of the next step. Now it is a matter of
combining this. “I am a power person and also not” is no longer a contradiction
when viewed from an integrating perspective. Parts that were previously consid-
ered negative and perhaps even split off can now be accepted more easily.
Self-updating also means taking a step into the post-conventional mindset. The
differentiation in perception increases by looking outwards. “Today I am like this,
tomorrow like that. I am a power person, but also a service provider” - the diversity
of self-interpretations increases and with it probably also the diversity of possible
behaviours.
The self-leadership questionnaire, which you can download from the following
address, is also suitable for mindset training: https://teamworks-gmbh.de/agile-
toolbox/.
4.1.5.6 Paradoxes
Since the term paradox appears several times in my list of questions, it is time here
to explain it in more detail. A paradox is a term from logic that also has an impor-
tant function in systemic organizational consulting.
A paradox is always two-valued.
You can just describe it on an abstract level like this:
• A applies. (A is underlined because, for example, it is the expressed value/de-

sired behavior/valid decision premise).
• B applies. (B is not underlined because it is the value/desired behavior/valid
decision premise that is subliminally lived out as well).
Organizations, teams and individuals can now deal with this in different ways:
• If A, then not B (deny away, repress, fight).

• A and B apply at the same time, but are distributed differently (both and), for
example.
Common to all paradoxes is the contradiction between what is asserted on the one
hand and expectations and judgments on the other. A is therefore the asserted. “I
know that I know nothing” (Socrates). But B is also true: “I know that I know
something.” A paradox can be partially resolved, even if it does not seem so at first
sight. Many scientific problems have been solved this way. At times, however, it
does not work; then they must simply remain so or be related. This requires what
is so beautifully called tolerance of ambiguity.
The terms dialectic, dilemma and paradox are closely intertwined. A dilemma
is a seemingly hopeless situation in which paradoxes occur.
In contrast to dialectical bivalence, which often allows a synthesis as thesis and
antithesis, this is sometimes not the case with paradox.
The stronger the perceived or real contradiction, the greater the resistance in the
workforce. If A = “We are modern and innovative”, B can hardly be “We are
tradition-conscious and rely on our traditional products” - in any case, every com-
munication expert would advise against making this connection. Nevertheless, the
contradiction can be resolved internally.
After all, internally both could apply, a life in A and B could be possible. A
company produces diesel engines. Diesel engines have no future. However, they
currently ensure the survival of the company. It would therefore be “suicidal” to
give up this branch. But in order to survive in the future, the company urgently
needs innovations. The topic needs to be given a high priority in the company. The
contradiction must not only be communicated, but also lived by each individual
employee.
Every decision for A or B also requires a sacrifice. You have to give up some-
thing. Being aware of this helps a lot.
Three Companies, Three Typical Challenges

At Musmore, a paradox is that agile concepts have made hierarchies obsolete
and the company has a dynamic and flexible structure of cross-functional teams.
At the same time, however, structure and order are required.
The software company provides customers with a platform on the Internet
through which they can distribute music they have produced themselves. It is a
major source of revenue for the company. However, new cloud solutions are
making this model obsolete; it has become easy for customers to build their own
shops and integrate external payment providers. The company needs to reposi-
tion itself and offer creative web solutions. As a result, a re-evaluation of em-
ployees is taking place within the company. While developers were the “stars”
until recently, designers are now. Yet it has always been frowned upon to give
individuals a prominent position. That does not fit with agility, many think. So
A is equality, B is diversity by professional status. A is communicated, B is
lived. By consciously elevating this contrast in communication, it becomes eas-
ier to endure. What employees experience on a daily basis is thus integrated and
no longer kept under the carpet. It is also allowed that particularly good design
teams are awarded. Contrary to the previous tradition, “ranks” are introduced.
Particularly experienced colleagues become senior designers who take the de-
sign lead in teams. This is linked to certain tasks, such as participation in the
design circle, which regularly invites designers from other companies to get
ideas from outside. The “degree” is awarded for one year.
At Broba, a paradox is that stability and tradition are emphasized, but at the
same time change and modernity. Employees are expected to take responsibil-
ity, but also to submit to processes and regulations. There are departments that
have to respond very quickly to customer requests, while others support them
with information or provide services. “This can’t be done so quickly because we
have to meet quality criteria” meets “This has to be done faster because we have
to satisfy the customer”.
At Helpme, it is a paradox that the employees are supposed to organise them-
selves, but over the years they have also learned time and again that everyone is
their own person and that free time is of great importance. Therefore, on the one
hand there is freedom and self-responsibility through self-organisation, on the
other hand there is exploitation and manipulation, for example in the planning of
holidays. Additional work is thus left to the good-natured, while the others derive
maximum benefit from the system. Some even work less and less.
You can analyze your own company or companies you advise according to these
patterns. What is A? What is B? Which of these is emphasized externally, that is,
is underlined? What is the company’s solution to the paradox? What is the price
for it?
By proceeding in this way, you have a framework or grid through which to look
at a company. It is also clear and unambiguous what the first step is to do: address
the pattern. That means it is always about introducing metacommunication. Of
course, this cannot be done from the middle or even relegated to a communications
department. It has to be implemented from the top, even if the impulse comes from
the bottom.
Figure 4.5 shows an example of such a paradox and a solution.
4.1.5.7 Differences by Company Size

I am sure you can vividly imagine that in a corporation that has 16 different levels
of management and several thousand employees, the thinking must be different
than in a 50-person company. The paradox patterns are also different.
This is due to the size alone. Up to about 150 people, everyone still knows each
other; after that, the level of anonymity increases. “Whom do I have to address
when ...?” - decision-making structures also become more complex and paradoxes
more visible. In a corporation there are many more contexts of expectation than in
a small company: the department this way, that one differently, in the national
company that way and then also these constantly changing bosses! On the one
hand, you have to design, and on the other hand, you have to comply with all the
regulations!
In smaller companies, this paradox pressure is also there, but differently. For
example, in some agile environments, companies expect everyone to take respon-
sibility, but at the same time this only applies to a limited extent. They want service
and not power, cloak “power” with word cosmetics or silence. And decide secretly
in the back room. Someone has to do it. But please don’t talk about it. That’s not
what we wanted.
cc It helps to act with the formula “Performance = Want × Ability × Allow-

ance” in concrete work and to start with the allowance when making
changes. Everything else makes little sense.
4.1.5.8 Tetralemma
The tetralemma is a logical figure. According to it, with reference to an object, one
can let A be valid, let B be valid, let A and B be valid, let neither A nor B be valid.
This is a very simple tool for the analysis of personal and organizational thinking
and acting:
• Do I think A or B?
• What happens when I think both?
• What would be the consequences of a neither-nor?
All of this can be done at the individual, team, and organizational levels, where
systematizing as in Fig. 4.6 helps to come up with ideas and new thoughts.
Depending on how the attitudes are distributed in a team or company, communi-
cation patterns arise, Fig. 4.7 shows the pattern of splitting. Here two right and wrong
attitudes meet. Typical patterns are those in which people seem to agree to unite ev-
erything (A and B) without actively dealing with the incompatibility. Thus, apparent
harmony is created. In the chaos pattern, on the other hand, there is an insistence on
positions: One this way, the other that way, everyone does what he wants.
Becoming aware of such patterns can help to come up with new thoughts and
therefore contributes to the development of the mindset.
Fig. 4.6 Tetralemma

4.1
The Organization as a Mind Changer
Fig. 4.7 Herzberg’s factors By Grap - Grap, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2724.298

163
What If...?
A company is thinking about training coaches to enable more lateral leadership.
The idea is for them to go into teams and provide support as needed. That is
A. It is also toying with the idea of training leaders in agile methods. That is
B. Do A and B go together? What if we did neither? When companies and teams
ask themselves questions like this, they open up their thinking to new ideas.
Basically, the tetralemma trains exactly what a person with a flexible mindset does
automatically or has already learned. Approaches from logic promote flexible
thinking. However, the same analytical grid can lead to very different thoughts.
This is what makes the use of such logical thought experiments in teams so valu-
able. You should keep in mind that groupthink easily occurs when group alphas
“model” these exercises. As with brainstorming, it is important to prepare the exer-
cise individually in relation to a task and then to collect and cluster the different
ideas. There should be no right and no wrong. The goal must be to increase the pool
of possible ideas.
4.1.5.9 Victim Analysis
There is no solution without sacrifice. Every action has a price. If I have two op-
tions and choose one, I forgo the other. When you look at things this way, they
become more tangible and steps more manageable.
More Guidance, but Please No More Defaults

Musmore’s paradox is that agile concepts have made hierarchies obsolete, but
at the same time structure and order are required.
If hierarchies are now established, this takes away the previous charm of fast
ways to a certain extent.
If things remain as they are, dissatisfaction increases and the ability to act
and speed decrease. One solution could be to work out a system of order for a
subarea and to try it out for two years. In doing so, everyone has to get involved.
The “time box” of the experiment is extremely important, because otherwise
there is a danger that without concrete experience, the step forward will be
quickly corrected.
In Broba’s case, a paradox is that stability and tradition are emphasized, but
at the same time change and modernity. One sacrifice could be to forego a cer-
tain percentage of stability and fill these missing percentages with concrete
implementation work in change and innovation. Another sacrifice could be to
entrust a group of employees in a different building with innovation tasks - in
other words, a separation of tradition and modernity.
At Helpme, a paradox is that employees are supposed to self-organize, but

have also learned over and over again over the years that everyone is their own
person. One sacrifice could be the deconstruction of self-organization in Stage
1. This could mean that employees have to get time off and vacation approved
again. Stricter rules are set for speeches.
4.1.5.10 Reflecting Team
Another very useful approach from the systemic school is the “Reflecting Team”. It
is also suitable for opening up thinking and finding new solutions, especially at the
individual level. One person describes a problem and formulates a question or a
thought. The rest of the team now talks about this question. The questioner just listens
or takes notes. At the end he thanks the team and comments on what he has heard.
Reflecting Team is a special form of feedback. The reflecting team members discuss
the other person from their own perspective. Thus, no “smart” or “dumb” advice is
given, but rather a deliberate focus is placed on each person’s highly individual per-
spective. This exercise requires team members to be respectful of each other.
A variation of this exercise is the so-called feedforward, which I introduced on
page 51.
4.1.6 Designing Processes
When people change their mindset, it takes years. For example, it takes two to three
years for a new stage of development to emerge. However, small steps of change
are sometimes already visible after half a year. If you want to shape change and
start with the mindset, I recommend that you first look at the maturity level of your
employees and then deal with neurobiological principles, which I will summarize
in a moment. These say a lot about how interventions need to be designed to make
a difference. For example, we develop leaders over at least a year.
cc The order of change can also be based on the performance formula al-
ready cited: First enable to be allowed, that is, expand the framework;
then activate want to and finally deepen ability.
4.1.6.1 Neurobiological Basis for Change

What happens in the head when thinking changes? Quite a lot! Think of the head
as a map of thinking. There are different places there where quite a lot goes on
when you change. At the same time, the areas are interconnected. So often it fires
in different places in the brain. What we call mindset is in the prefrontal cortex,
particularly in the hippocampus, the seahorse. This is also where what psycho-
therapists with a psychoanalytic background call “mentalization” takes place.
Mentalization is the ability to interpret one’s own behavior or the behavior of other
people.
Or to put it another way: we explain the world to ourselves through mentaliza-
tion. And we store these explanations to a large extent in the hippocampus. It is
something like the central memory, which compares whether we already know
something or something is still new. The prefrontal cortex is strongly influenced by
the limbic system, the emotional center. This acts in a simplified way: a stimulus
triggers a feeling and this is then classified and “explained” in terms of what we
know. You can think of this in terms of a crosshair between impulses and reflection.
At the top, we have “high reflectivity” versus “low reflectivity”. On the sides, we
have “impulse activation” versus “impulse control” (see Fig. 4.2). In the grid, you
can also see where ego development is deposited. A well-developed, mature person
is, from a neurobiological perspective, reflective and controlled - relating to his
impulses, that is, not splitting them off or suppressing affects or emotions when it
is not appropriate. Rather, he can “dose” it according to his roles and the situations,
sometimes letting it out, sometimes not.
Here, too, concrete development approaches arise. For example, I often encoun-
ter people who have difficulties in behaving differently in different roles - in a way
that is appropriate to their role. As you can see here, this is a question of balance
between impulses (e.g., “now I’m angry!”) and impulse control (not letting out this
anger now). The more that is reflected, the more it should broaden the possibilities
for action. And that is exactly the goal (see also Fig. 4.1).
An agile mindset in our sense moves on the side of high reflectivity and between
impulse activation and impulse control.
However, the prefrontal cortex cannot be separated from the limbic system. In
order for new activity to appear in the cortex and for the indicator to continue to
move in the direction of high reflective capacity, it needs firing: or more precisely
chemical-electrical signals - feelings.
Most of us lump affects, emotions, and feelings together. For simplicity’s sake,
I usually do too. Affects are immediate feeling states that take over the whole body.
Feelings and emotions are harder to grasp in their difference. For neuroscientist
António Damásio, emotions are outwardly visible, such as on the face. Feelings, on
the other hand, arise when the brain analyses the body’s reactions, consciously
perceives them and translates them into words.
This view now seems outdated. The neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barrett [3] has
revolutionized research on emotions. One of her key findings is that all emotions
are constructed - very essentially through language. Emotions also do not just sit in
the head, but run throughout the body. They are not the same in all cultures, she
says, and they also vary among individuals. There are even cultural concepts of
emotions. Language and the surrounding culture play a significant role in emotion
learning. Lisa Feldman Barrett illustrates this, for example, with the German word
“Schadenfreude”. The more this emotion is conceptualized, the more it can be ex-
perienced. That is, only when someone has a word for something can they feel it.
This changes previous ways of looking at emotions.
For example, before Lisa Feldman Barrett, researchers argued about whether a
feeling arises simultaneously with a stimulus or only afterwards. Probably in the
end it is: There are physical reactions, but their interpretation depends on what we
have just called mentalization, which is precisely very centrally shaped by lan-
guage and culture. Individual factors also play a role. This new view has far-
reaching consequences, also for the development of people in change processes.
Until now, it was assumed that there could be uniform concepts - such as events
that trigger joy. Now we have to think much more contextually and individually.
What one person finds good may bore another.
When you know an emotion concept, you can feel that emotion. In our culture we
have "sadness,"’ in Tahitian culture they don’t have that. Instead, they have a word
whose closest translation would be "the kind of fatigue you feel when you have the
flu." It’s not the equivalent of sadness, that’s what they feel in situations where we
would feel sad [3].
Emotions also play a central role in ego development. With increasing ego develop-
ment, the ability to differentiate between one’s own needs and emotions increases.
Someone in a post-conventional phase can, for example, more readily name how
one’s own emotions change after an event (“first anger, then joy”) - even without
evaluating it or justifying it. This speaks even more in favour of metacommunica-
tion - which ultimately also promotes linguistic differentiation.Emotions change
the brain. Strong emotions trigger electrical impulses that turn into chemical ones
and are thus able to bridge the so-called synaptic gap between two neurons.
Much of this development takes place in the hippocampus, which belongs to the
prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that has only emerged in the last three to four
million years. This has a high degree of plasticity. This so-called neuro-plasticity is
the ability to change and adapt itself. Connections that are used a lot strengthen
through long-term potentiation. Little-used ones weaken. This is long-term depres-
sion. These little-used connections just atrophy. Throughout life the brain can
change, new connections are always possible. By the same principle, new connec-
tions form between neurons and unused connections are broken down. Through
long-term potentiation, new connections grow, “roads” in the head, which are still
very thin at first and then become stronger and stronger - if one continues to work
consistently on growth. Thus it is possible to change the brain, if one works on it
daily and stays with it over a longer period of time.
Subsequently, I would like to introduce a model that helps to understand where
to start. It is the “model of the four limbic levels” according to Gerhard Roth [4].
The limbic system is a functional unit of the brain that processes emotions. The
limbic levels are to be understood like layers. The deeper the layer, the harder to
reach and harder to change. The higher up, the more accessible the level is to out-
side influence, for example through coaching.
Lower Limbic Level

This unconscious level is genetically and epigenetically predetermined. Epigenetic
means through the activity of genes. This is where temperament lies, where the
elementary affective behaviors and feelings are found. Affects are also, in Lisa
Feldman Barrett’s view, something deeper, more innate than the verbal-cultural
emotions. They trigger immediate physical responses: Impulses such as attack and
defense, flight and freezing, aggressiveness, anger, and sexual behavior.
Middle Limbic Level

This level is the level of social imprinting (in principle, therefore, the above-
mentioned mentalization). Here motivational and emotional events are linked with
innate feelings such as fear, anger, sadness, joy. The recognition of emotions and
facial expressions, gestures and body posture - all this takes place here. At this
level, the basic and individual motivational system is formed, which guides action
through the emotions.
Our self-image and our relationship to fellow human beings - all this is here on
the middle level. This level is the result of unconscious and conscious processes,
some of which are rememberable, some of which are not. If they are not remember-
able, then formative events have taken place before language development.
Upper Limbic Level

This level contains the conscious, predominantly socially mediated drives and
experiences. This is where impulse inhibition, risk perception and the rules of
moral-ethical behaviour develop. Basically, mentalization part 2. At this level,
social expectations merge with the middle and lower limbic level - so you expand
your portfolio as a person. Accordingly, this level is not fully developed until the
age of 18–20.
The Cognitive-Linguistic Level

The cognitive-linguistic level prepares actions and is a part of the working memory
as well as the basis of intelligence, understanding, insight and planned as well as
context-appropriate behaviour. So mentalization part 3, if you will. Adding Lisa
Feldman Barrett’s findings, emotions play out at all levels and become correspond-
ingly more complex at the fourth level.
In truth, of course, these levels are not so finely separable and interlocked. The
lower the level, the harder it is to reach. At the same time, changes are more funda-
mental when they take place on the lower levels.
Important for us: There is no mind without feeling and also no feeling without
mind. It all belongs together. But there are also no general rules on how to trigger
feelings. What brings joy to one person can annoy another. Only one thing is clear:
the stronger a person reacts to something, the greater the likelihood of change.
Change Hurts
In our training, we had a participant who was annoyed in the second module.
She did not want to deal so much with these psychological topics. She person-
ally would have a problem analyzing everything. But clearly she was deeply
touched. She started reflecting on herself and others and two months later she
was transformed. She had gone through a painful process, but for the first time
she had also thought about why she was so sensitive to criticism - and how this
had created an interaction [12]. Because she herself did not want to be criti-
cized, she was always overprepared. At the same time, she was afraid to say
things clearly because she thought others were just as vulnerable as she was.
Now she has understood that this is not the case at all, but that she constructs her
own reality. In the process, she had blind spots.
This is a common reaction: people react negatively when they are asked to
leave the previous radius of thinking. As a decision-maker, you must know this
and also take it into account. An initial negative reaction does not allow any
conclusions to be drawn about further developments. Something resists, but that
can also be good and important. If consultants, HR managers and executives
stop expecting positive initial reactions and always benevolent feedback, they
can often achieve more. Because change is always a painful process.
4.1.7 Start Change with Metacommunication About Change
So, if you want to change the mindset of the people in your company, first ask
yourself what kind of thinking and actions shape the organization. What do they
do? What do they not do? What do they talk about? What do you not talk about?
Which people do you promote? Which ones don’t? This analysis should become
transparent for all. Paradoxes must be made visible and spoken out. Whoever wants
to change the logic of thinking and acting in a company should therefore start with
meta-communication - as long as all other issues have been clarified. This means:
the company has reasonably clear goals, visions are there and the dysfunctions are
in a framework that does not hinder everything. Another prerequisite is that open-
ness is desired and driven forward from the very top with all clarity. There can be
no back and forth here.
A system is like an organism. Up to now it got along well in its environment, but
now the environment is changing and it encounters problems. To do this, the sys-
tem must learn how to cope with this new environment. In this learning process
there will inevitably be contradictions. The shift from leadership by task transfer to
leadership by responsibility transfer can cause confusion. What are we supposed to
do? Are they serious? Or are they just talking?
There may be employees who feel that on the one hand creativity, but on the
other hand routine work is demanded of them, translated this means lateral think-
ing and adaptation at the same time. Wherever employees look: In change, they
will encounter many more contradictions than ever before. Managers will want to
communicate visions and yet sow doubts in everyday life. These contradictions
need to be talked about. Also about the associated uncertainty, the deterioration of
the climate, the impossibility of forecasting the future for longer periods of time.
You have to be open, but above a certain company size you can no longer say ev-
erything at the same time, you have to choose. How much good news and how
much bad news? What is important?
One solution is metacommunication on different levels:
• The company as a system reports on its learning and lessons learned.

• Top management tells of successes and defeats.
• The departments (or circles) report on topics relevant to them.
• Teams have their own learning metaboard.
Companies that set themselves up as a learning company lay a good foundation for
metacommunication and keep moving.
“Our Culture doesn’t Allow that”

“Ms. Hofert, in our culture, we don’t give open feedback. We can’t ask employ-
ees how they see their supervisor. That weakens them. That doesn’t work for
us.” That was the statement from a manager when I suggested introducing feed-
back. I had been a bit hasty and had not paid enough attention to the company’s
logic of thought and action. If at all possible, we start our consultations and
training with interviews and artifact checks. Artifacts are manifested values.
With questionnaires that focus on different aspects, we try to get to the bottom
of the companies’ logic of thinking and acting. This allows a more specific ap-
proach. Those responsible decide on measures themselves. However, it is al-
ways a challenge to maintain the balance between focusing on self-solving
forces and stimulating thinking. In addition, there is the question of where to
start. In the example I gave, I ended up starting a developmental coaching ses-
sion with the CEO. She had to start with herself, with her own attitude to feed-
back. Of course, this has been instrumental in what she says and also how she
behaves. Change became possible when she understood that feedback does not
have to mean weakening, but rather strengthening, if it is communicated and
exemplified clearly and appropriately.
For many companies, it is the market challenges that can no longer be met that
demand a rethink. This rethinking is more than a learning process, a transformation
of the logic of thought and action. This logic of thought and action is most readily
apparent at the organizational level in the decision-making premises. How does
one decide in this organization? What are the premises of decisions? If you change
decision premises, you also change the company. For example, people are hired
according to different criteria than before, new selection instruments are installed,
and goals are no longer set for the year but for three months.
cc We hold: Every new solution needs an old problem. Major changes

need problems that can no longer be solved with previous thinking.
This is true for organizations as well as for individuals. Companies are
shaped by their management. Their logic of thinking and acting has to
change first. It is easier to start here in small companies than in larger
ones. In corporations, it is not so much the top management that
shapes the culture (since they typically change every few years), but
rather those who have held powerful positions for a long time. Their
mindset is often very “stuck”. Breaking this down is often only possible
through restructuring and new appointments. Here it is necessary to
think outside the box and change the existing structures: Divisional
managers could also be given new areas of responsibility if, for exam-
ple, they are to shape change together as a team.
We have seen: The central instrument for driving change is new decisions or
revised and retracted earlier decisions. Decisions need decision premises, that is,
preconditions for them to be made. These can be formal or emotional, made on the
basis of evidence or translated as a rule (if ... then ...). In companies, decision prem-
ises must be clear. There needs to be talk about what they are. Paradoxical deci-
sions also belong as a topic in meta-communication. Changing decision premises
must also be communicated. Most importantly, the way decisions are to be made
after a change must be lived consistently. Let us think about the exhausting first
steps: If the accompanying deterioration of the general mood leads to an all-too-
fast retraction, it does not make the situation any better.
Internal communication is of particular importance in this whole complex.
Many companies that either hardly use internal communication or only use it on
the intranet or confuse it with feelgood management misjudge this. I experience
many companies in which the Scrum Master is responsible for internal communi-
cation. If this person is active in different teams, this can actually be a solution.
Only it should be clear how this is done and to which topics it applies. And that it
is so.
Changes Need New Decisions

Until now, the Musmore entrepreneur has preferred teamwork. All new em-
ployees were selected and hired by the teams. These decided whether someone
“fit”. In this way, however, homogeneous areas of power were created. There
was a tendency to only ever hire people you liked. This had a negative effect on
innovation. In its change process, the company focused, among other things, on
more individuality. Cross-divisional teams of experts were called upon to deal
with specific issues such as personnel selection, to build up know-how and to
advise others. The final decision on new employees was still to be made by the
team, but the teams were required to look for colleagues with complementary
strengths and to seek advice on selection.
Whether we look at the level of the company or the individual: The logic of thought
and action can and will only change when problems arise, limits are reached, some-
thing no longer works as before. That is why many people only change when they
have experienced something serious, a burn-out, dismissal, separation, borderline
experiences of their own kind, a completely different company culture, a new envi-
ronment. The logic of thinking and acting seldom develops in a context that “fits”
and does not show its own limits.
This can also be applied to companies. Threats from disruptive change, a short-
age of skilled workers, strong growth or restructuring have the side effect that they
make it easier to create something new. After all, one is already not doing so well,
changes are then possible. If everything is “happy”, then this is much more diffi-
cult - unless the founder or the management team drive these changes with vision-
ary power and in the knowledge that this will generate resistance and increase
employee turnover.
That is why companies that are under pressure change more easily. One exam-
ple is Otto, whose case I will outline later. Its very existence is threatened by
Amazon and Zalando and it had to act.
What do we take back to the field? A summary:
• As a consultant, fathom the thinking and action logic of the company you are
working with. As an internal, get consultants who have a good perception of
this. Consultants should not have already become part of the system (because
they have been working as consultants for this company for a long time), but
can certainly work hand in hand with them. Interviews and artifact checks are
one way to get started. How can you tell what makes a company tick? What is
revealed when you walk through their spaces? How and where do values mani-
fest themselves? Artifact checks bring all this to light.
• Focus on the different levels and elements of top management, middle manage-
ment and lower management and always consider the system level as well. The
system level is everything that describes the overall culture, including the arti-
facts, which also reflect basic assumptions such as “work is work” or “work
must be fun”.
cc Metacommunication should target the “may” in the performance for-

mula. What are employees allowed to do? What are they allowed to do
now? What is desired? In some contexts, employees do not take change
seriously or don’t trust the roast. This should also be addressed. And
please, not in the form of advertising or heroic stories reminiscent of
scripted reality ... Employees do not take that seriously.
4.1.8 Motivating People to Think in New Ways
Let us now move on from being allowed to want to. The most beautiful change
projects fail when employees block. Motivation is therefore a prerequisite for com-
panies that want to change. But what is motivation anyway? Only when we take a
closer look at the term can we grasp what we are talking about.
Like agility or leadership, motivation is an abstract term to which everyone
gives their own meaning. This often explains contradictory surveys. According to
one institute’s survey, employees are totally demotivated, and according to another,
they are satisfied. How does that fit together? Often it is due to completely different
interpretations of motivation. Some lump it together with job satisfaction, others
with employer identification, and still others with performance satisfaction.
Performance motivation, for example, is something quite different from job satis-
faction. What do you want as an employer? Happy or performance-motivated employ-
ees? There is a considerable difference. And the assumption that happiness is a prereq-
uisite for performance motivation is simply wrong. On the contrary, it may well be that
people develop more performance motivation in a competitive environment.
I remember a client who had “grown up” in such an environment and then
moved to a company where the emphasis was not on performance but on employee
satisfaction and security. His motivation collapsed and ambitions shifted to the
private sphere.
So it is about fundamental questions that need to be clarified first. What kind of
motivation do I need? And how does it fit into the corporate culture?
We have said that a person with a mindset suitable for an agile self-organization
context should have the following skills:
• He/she should be able to include the context and framework.

• He/she should be able to look at a situation from different angles and judge
those that pertain to his/her area of expertise.
• He/she should have his/her own attitude (which is more than learned opinion)
and be able to take a position.
• He/she must be able to develop him/herself while really wanting feedback.
• He/she should be able to cooperate, that is, work closely with others.
• He/she should be open to other and new perspectives and alternative truths.
• He/she must be able to comply with rules, adapt and break them with good
reason.
• He/she should bring a relaxed relationship with authority and question things no
matter who they come from.
• He/she should have and demonstrate a respectful relationship with others.
In this chapter we talk about mind-change, that is, about how one can change think-
ing in this direction. If you continue the list, it also includes dialectical thinking,
that is, the ability to recognize the two-value nature of something, even within
oneself: Authority is just not only this way or that, but also that way. People whose
logic already reaches further will see this automatically. When I first introduced the
list (page 81 ff.), I did not mention this aspect. But if you, as a personnel manager,
want to get an idea of what is in a person’s mind, pay attention to this aspect in the
answers. Someone with higher ego development would say, for example,
“Authority? What do you mean by that? What do you imagine by it? The term can
be interpreted either way. To me, authority figures are those who have an attitude
based on something.” That is, one answer contains several aspects.
People with an agile mindset in this sense are often more demanding and less
easily led by authority in a “simple” sense. In our study, one finding was that senior
leaders tended to lean more towards the Order value cluster. This would not be an
adequate orientation variable for these people, insofar as this is done unilaterally.
If you want to give such people space, you should create the framework for it -
and then also promote motivation for self-development among managers. The art
here is not to let such constant further development tip over into a cold perfor-
mance principle or into blind optimism about progress. A healthy mix is the goal
and at the same time the path - it will have to change again and again.
However, before you dedicate yourself to these topics, there is still other “home-
work” to do. For example, the so-called hygiene factors must be right so that mea-
sures for organizational learning can take effect. Because if fundamental things are
in a mess, you don’t even need to start.
Here, a look at Frederick Herzberg’s somewhat aged but still meaningful two-
factor theory (Fig. 4.7) helps. Hygiene factors do not contribute to motivation.
Rather, it is when they are not true that people are demotivated. So if demotivating
factors are there - and we see many companies where they are - start here first.
Demotivating factors include:
• A fair and adequate salary. People who know or feel that there is a gap, who feel
exploited, will show less motivation, moreover, are more likely to jump ship or
have quit inwardly. This also applies to unequal pay for men and women.
• Working conditions. People who cannot perform their work optimally because
they are not equipped according to the state of the art will hardly be motivated.
• Personal relationship with the supervisor. If this is poor, it will demotivate.
• Technical competence of the supervisor.
Motivating factors, on the other hand, are:
• A sense of achievement: People who succeed will be more engaged.

• Recognition and appreciation for the work, no matter how demanding. People
who feel they belong to a second or third class are less likely to apply them-
selves. They will also tend to be more disloyal and engage in counterproductive
behavior, such as stealing.
• Personal responsibility. People who have room for manoeuvre and are allowed
to act on their own responsibility are more motivated.
Motivate for Change

In summary, this means that the conditions must first be created so that people
can be motivated. Many companies have work to do here, because income in-
equality is still very widespread. Not all companies offer recognition and room
for manoeuvre. These are something like the basic attitudes for change. If these
are not right, other measures are hardly effective.
4.1.9 Training People to Think in New Ways
The organisational mind change should take place on different levels. One part is
metacommunication on system, department and team level, another is leadership
development. Here, you should develop concepts that give as many different im-
pulses as possible. In contrast to the past, however, the focus should be on the “we”
and no longer only on the individual level.
Reflection formats and encounters with “other” thinking are very central. This
means that managers need to get out and experience! This can mean that they
temporarily work in other companies, become active in social institutions or even
swap jobs internally. A mix of stimulus, targeted developmental coaching, training
and workshop should be individually chosen. I will go into some formats in the
next chapter. However, this is a selection, without any claim to completeness. In
“Agile Leadership” [2], you will find further suggestions for possible formats, such
as Deep Dialogue or Dragon Dreaming.
4.2 An Exemplary Individual Change Concept
This section describes a possible sequence of mind-change approaches with the

aim of changing the logic of thought and action. This has proven successful for us,
but I can also imagine completely different approaches. What is important is the
process, a longer duration of measures and an orientation towards the degree of
maturity. The following measures are aimed at people in effective mode and above.
People in the right mode need much more individual guidance. Coaching here
needs to be developmental and individual, as these people are less likely to “come
out” in a group setting. See also Sect. 4.1, especially the statements about feedback
at the organisational level.
The question is also whether these people - if they are already in leadership -
can really be developed for agile thinking in our sense. Possibly, tandems could
4.2 An Exemplary Individual Change Concept 177
also be solutions that connect people with different logics of thinking and acting.
These should definitely be accompanied and moderated.
4.2.1 Establishing Basic Assumptions
The following steps apply at both the organizational and individual levels. I will
keep formulating and pointing out differences when it makes sense to do so. In
order to think and implement change, we need a shared understanding of the basic
assumptions that underlie change. What do I believe in? What do we believe in?
This should be put in writing. It can also be included in a solemnly adopted frame-
work statement by the owner describing how their business should be run, what
they want to establish and where degrees of freedom exist [5].
An example of basic assumptions and practical derivations from them (see also
p. 17 ff.):
• We form our view of things ourselves. There is no independent reality. Thinking

cannot be separated from the one who thinks. This means practically for us: We
have to fathom exactly what the other wants and take every thought seriously.
• We know that human perception is a neuronal construction process in the brain
that is created anew every moment. This allows for constant updating and adap-
tation. We humans tend to avoid this adaptation (resistance to change) and to
confirm ourselves and block out other information; we leaders need to be aware
of this at all times.
• As a company, we are a closed system in which paradoxes naturally arise. We
respect, value and communicate these openly.
• As a company, we are embedded in the region, the environment and society: this
automatically leads to conflicting interests, which we discuss openly.
• We know that a team can be more brilliant than its individual members, and we
encourage collaboration as well as the individual. But when in doubt, the team
comes first.
4.2.2 Formulating One’s Own Epistemology
What is really existent? Why do I live? What gives me meaning? These are ques-
tions that many leaders avoid. But how is someone who is unclear about his own
meaning supposed to lead people who ask themselves such questions? Our society
is changing a lot in this regard. People do not just want a secure job, they want
meaning.
Formulating an epistemology of one’s own life can be very helpful here. The
following questions can also be discussed in a leadership circle:
• In what larger context does what I do fit in?

• How does the picture change when I add my own finitude to it?
• What guides me?
• How do I lead others?
• What is successful leadership?
• What is a good decision?
• How do I recognize a good decision?
In doing so, you should get to the bottom of what really is. Let us take Immanuel
Kant to help us. His philosophy tries to answer three central questions:
• What can I know?

• What can I hope for?
• What am I to do?
These are fluid, open questions that accompany you constantly, and to which every
day and every minute can bring a new answer. They are suitable to promote humil-
ity - humility before others and humility before other truths. At the same time, they
bring one back to the core of something, even in a very practical way. Differences
that arise from the observation of the outer world and our perception become tan-
gible.
What we believe to be true is a world absorbed and filtered through our senses.
What matters is not what objective circumstances someone lives in, whether they
have degrees and experience or acquired status. What is decisive is how something
feels to someone.
I think very highly of Byron Katie’s four simple questions, “The Work”, as they
encourage constructivist thinking - and promote reflection, including at an organ-
isational and team level:
• Is that true?
• Can I really know that it’s true? So can I be completely sure that it is true?
• How do I react, how do I feel, when I think this thought?
• Who or what would I be without this thought? How would I feel without this
thought?
4.2.3 Developing an Attitude
Posture, to me, is what lifts you up inside. It is the equivalent of the back. Posture
gives stability. Towards oneself and towards others. I have already described its
interaction with basic assumptions and values on pages 15 ff.
With a straight posture one meets others at eye level. However, the inner as well
as the outer posture is not a stiff stick, but something soft and flexible [11].
Principles straighten up. Values, in turn, have to do with evaluating. I say to some-
thing “I like/don’t like”:
• I like progress when things evolve in the sense of the continuation of man and
nature.
• I like to take responsibility for contributing to that progress.
• I like freedom when people are allowed to say what they think.
Everyone has such values and can make a personal declaration of values. However,
this is only “worth” something if there is a basic assumption about it and a principle
is also derived from it, that is, a standard for one’s own actions:
• I like progress when things evolve in the sense of the continuation of man and
nature. I advocate for it every day by blogging about it.
• I like to take responsibility so that I contribute to this progress. I am committed
to volunteering.
• I like freedom when people are allowed to say what they think. I stand up for
this every day and intervene when freedom is curtailed.
Values and principles can also be extended to the understanding of leadership:
• We promote the psychological development of our employees. To this end, we

support open self-reflection, related to the individual and the team.
• We focus on cooperation. To this end, we offer various formats to bring people
together.
4.2.4 Updating Knowledge
You can know a lot, but it does not get you anywhere practically. You can also think
a lot, but still get stuck. There is a nice book by Dan Ariely with the great title
“Thinking helps, but is of no use” [6]. It’s about decisions and how people make
them. Not rationally. Many people separate heart and mind. They think they are
making a rational decision, but are actually acting emotionally. Even when people
claim not to feel emotions, they have the same and sometimes even greater activity
in their brains as people who do feel emotions. So we are constantly fooling our-
selves. And we know little about ourselves. Often we simply lack the knowledge.
How are emotions and thoughts connected? How do we make decisions? How do
we learn? What changes thinking?
Knowledge is not superfluous, on the contrary. It is just that modern knowledge
transfer should be much more interdisciplinary than it used to be. What bothers me
is the separation into theory and practice. In theoretical training, practice is weak,
in practical training, theory is often outdated. Why does it have to be like that? And
why do disciplines have to have boundaries to the outside world?
In times of digitalization, we need more interdisciplinary knowledge than ever
before! However, education and training are becoming more and more one-
dimensional and specialised in some areas. Some people are very good at acquiring
knowledge themselves; the Internet offers all kinds of opportunities. But these are
typically the ones who are already active and have a “growth mindset”. The others
do not even come up with the idea; they have to nudge companies along.
I think it is fundamental that leaders have knowledge about people, but very few
do. They should know that there cannot be thoughts without feelings or that our
brain is constantly fooling us. Knowledge is a basis for challenging our own as-
sumptions about ourselves, others and the world. I therefore believe that knowl-
edge about human beings should be part of a kind of Studium generale, and in this
context I find the current “liberal arts” movement, for example, very important.
That is also general education.
Ignorance inhibits. If someone has learned that humans are “the way they are”,
they are more likely to incorporate this into their basic assumptions than if they
have been taught a dynamic picture. Actually, this would be the task of educational
policy, but it is only slowly penetrating. Ask high school graduates about their im-
age of man. You will find many who have a static view of themselves and others,
even if neurobiological basics of learning are already taught at school.
In order for someone to adopt an inner attitude characterized by the willing-
ness to update oneself, that is, the will to update oneself at any time, he needs
the conviction that this is possible at all. He needs a process view of himself and
others: I am something that is constantly changing and reassembling itself every
moment.
Knowledge transfer should therefore also be part of the mind-changing process,
despite its practical orientation.
4.2.5 Feedback and Reflection
I have already written about feedback at the organisational level in Sect. 4.1. My
message was that it is a very fundamental decision whether companies want to
initiate such processes. Trust is essential in this process. But feedback and reflec-
tion also take place at the individual level, for example in leadership development,
and are key issues here. Here, too, the fundamental decision is to want this kind of
development beyond competencies.
Reflection can take place at the individual level as well as in groups, preferably
at both levels. The topic for managers is the development of their own mindset. It
makes sense to have circled the development potential more precisely beforehand,
for example in a coaching session.
Such development potentials could be:
• Perceiving one’s own needs and relying less on learned and expert knowledge
(typical development field in the right mode).
• Taking time to closely explore and deeply question the perspectives of others,
questioning truth and reality (typical developmental area in effective mode).
• Improve the pleading for a position (typical development field in flexible mode).
• Practicing illustrating your own concerns (all).
• Request feedback really openly (and not just what is self-defined as “construc-
tive”, as of effectively).
• Giving development-related feedback (all).
• Practising lateral thinking (all of them, for example by taking the position of an
Advocatus Diaboli).
• Etc.
Leadership development benefits greatly from a reflection component. However, a

company must be willing to engage in it. If egoisms exist and prevent status from
being open, it will not work. An experienced moderator is very helpful.
It could also be a way to bring together leaders from different companies in a
reflection group. Development-enthusiastic clients of mine have also already used
the Meetup platform to set up groups that pursue this one interest: further develop-
ing their own mindset. Different formats are available for reflection, from
“Developmental Dialogue” to “Theory U” according to Claus Otto Scharmer. It
can also be a monthly intervision, for example, in which everyone brings in and
discusses their topics.
Reflection is closely related to feedback. However, not with the kind of feed-
back that is common in many companies - that is more evaluation and assessment.
Feedback should rather be feedback with one’s own perspective. And it should in-
clude a belief in development, that is, it should be based on a “growth mindset”.
This has to be learned! Because it means: not focusing on details that you notice
yourself, but perceiving what triggers something in you.
Going to a Deeper Level

Michael sees himself as a faultfinder. He immediately recognizes when some-
thing is wrong and reports it back. Mistakes bother him. This catches his em-
ployees off guard. They do not feel valued because Michael doesn’t talk about
the big picture. If Michael now talks about what it triggers in him when he sees
mistakes, and the employees describe what this focus does to them, this can
open the eyes of both sides. That is the art of feedback: going to a deeper level
that puts one’s own perception at the center.
If you really want to develop people, you should stop measuring their competences
and comparing them with some ideal values. This is not an eye-to-eye approach,
because you assume that you know how someone should be or what is right. But
you do not know that. That is why it is much more about open and honest feedback
than measuring. How do people perceive each other, even as they reflect on their
own development? What do they sense in the other, what impulses and thoughts do
they have when they see or hear him or her?
Do not give tips or good advice, rather listen to yourself: What would you like
to give this person in order to help? Cross out everything that helps you, such as the
inner cry of joy at having discovered a fault or weakness in the other person. When
giving feedback, always mentally take three steps away from yourself. Put yourself
in a fundamentally benevolent position. The feedback that results will be different.
cc Disclaimer: I know that this attitude is not possible in a shark tank. But I
also know that the sharks will not help you or your managers develop-
mentally, unless dealing with them becomes a training ground. In that
case, I advise coaching or development programs outside the company.
4.2.6 Coaching Never Alone Again
“I haven’t thought of that before!” Coaching can generate new ideas, help you to
go beyond your limited thinking horizon, to see new things. The critical point is
4.3 Learning Dialectical Logic 183
that it can also freeze thinking. What matters is the coach - and his or her mindset.
The more conventional this is, the less likely groundbreaking new thoughts are. It
is not enough to ask the right questions. It is also about appropriate follow-up ques-
tions, impulses, suggestions. A coach needs a later ego development in order to be
able to grasp the complexity of what a client is saying to him.
I think it stands to reason that someone who is convinced that you need a goal
in order to take a step forward will not allow aimlessness as an option. That some-
one who believes in vocation as the meaning of life will coach to that end. The
person of the coach himself is the greatest intervention.
It is often said that the solution lies within each person. This is right and wrong
at the same time. The truth is in everyone, but sometimes not. Normally, we think
solutions only within the framework of our own logic of thinking, not beyond it.
When we have reached a goal, we look for a new one - but we do not fundamentally
question the search for a goal. But that is exactly where a solution could lie.
Developmental coaching takes such questions into account. It is about problem
solving involving new ways of thinking. A coach must not only know systemic
methods, but must have internalized constructivist thinking. In my book “Hört auf
zu coachen (Stop coaching)” [7], I have presented this approach in more detail.
On the other hand, the focus on the individual is no longer appropriate. The
solutions of the future lie in cooperation or cooperative collaboration - even across
company boundaries. External influences stimulate and fuel innovation. Coaching,
however, is too often a stewing in one’s own juice without breaking down boundar-
ies to the outside. It also does not take into account that people have different
mindsets.
So when we speak of mind-change, I would like to suggest two aspects:
• Think of coaching also as an approach to development, see Robert Kegan’s

models.
• Understand coaching as something that should always be accompanied by re-
flection at the group level.
4.3 Learning Dialectical Logic
You may ask, what is the point of a chapter on dialectics in a book like this?
Quite simply, dialectical conversation helps to explore and recognize different
positions. It promotes seeing different points of view, systematizing them and
broadening the field of vision. It also makes clear how misunderstandings arise
because everyone imagines something completely different under one term. Last
but not least, it supports logical thinking and precise language.
First of all, I would like to pick up non-philosophers and explain what philo-
sophical thinking actually means. Often philosophizing is understood as disorderly
rambling. And that is exactly what it is not.
In the first step, we can distinguish pure or theoretical from applied or practical
philosophy. This distinction goes back to Aristotle and was extended by Immanuel
Kant. He defined pure philosophy as the doctrine of what ought to be, and applied
philosophy as the doctrine of what is. This distinction is sometimes difficult to
make when looking at the different fields. That is why many today see this separa-
tion as unnecessary. Purely dialectically in the sense of the synthesis of thesis
(practice) and antithesis (theory), it is also really unnecessary.
One area of applied philosophy is dialectics and epistemology. Dialectics is the
doctrine of opposites, epistemology is the theory of knowledge, which states what
preconditions knowledge needs. Ethics, as applied ethics, is also a practical form
of philosophy. It says what people should do. All these three philosophical disci-
plines are very well suited to open people’s mindsets.
Here, however, I would like to concentrate on dialectics, which offers the most
practical starting points for conducting conversations. Another advantage: It does
not penetrate into psychological shallows, so it is practical and relevant to the pres-
ent. Therefore, it fits well into a professional context. People in the effective and
flexible phase can be reached very well. People who are strongly stuck in the right
mode can be infected and inspired by the group, so that it takes them further. It also
promotes a view of one’s own position and needs, one of the most important areas
of development for people in the Right Mode.
4.3.1 The Different Understandings of Dialectics
Dialectics can be translated quite simply as the art of conducting a conversation,

but there is of course much more behind it. The understanding of dialectic differs
significantly among the individual philosophers. For Socrates it is a procedure for
the clarification of concepts, for Plato for the cognition of ideas. These two ap-
proaches can be very well combined. The Socratic approach is an ascending dialec-
tic with the aim of finding out what something means to one person and another -
and what concepts connect. Plato’s approach, on the other hand, is a descending
dialectic with a focus on understanding what lies behind the idea. Dutch philoso-
pher and author Jos Kessels [8] combines the two into his conversational method
of the “glass bead game”. Since the contradiction cannot remain in perpetuity, one
raises the object intellectually to a new level in which this contradiction is abol-
ished. This new concept, however, will also be fraught with contradiction.
Friedrich Hegel oriented himself more than 2000 years later to thesis, antithesis
and synthesis. Synthesis is the higher level to which we come by dealing with the-
sis and antithesis. Immanuel Kant took a critical stance towards dialectics, as it was
not based on empiricism, that is, it was transcendental.
So although the construct of dialectics is inconsistently defined, there are unify-
ing elements. At one level or another, it is always concerned with opposites and the
meaning of the abstract. It therefore fits well into a constructivist understanding,
according to which each person constructs their reality subjectively and there is no
objective truth. It also shows the meaning-making character of language. Dialectics
traces the meanings that the individual or his reference groups - be it team, com-
pany, culture or society - give to things.
That is why dialectics is one of the most important development tools of all. It can
change thinking. It provides great tools for reflection, no matter whether one uses it
in the sense of Socrates, Plato or Hegel. Table 4.1 shows the different approaches.
In the next chapter, I would like to show the concrete handling of dialectics with
some examples.
4.3.2 Opposites Attract Each Other
So dialectics always has to do with opposites: The one and the other may result in
something third. Or in the sense of Friedrich Hegel: thesis and antithesis lead to
synthesis, not to be confused with compromise. The latter is also something third,
but only a synthesis when it raises two opposing positions to a higher level.
Hegel recommended a three-step approach:
1. Cancellation in the sense of “elimination” of the opposition.

2. Abolition in the sense of “preservation” of the opposition.
3. Lifting up in the sense of “lifting up” to a higher level.
What does it bring to “think” about these three points? I find: many a new insight.
Let us start with the abolition in the sense of “eliminating” the opposition. Let us
take as an example our basic topic, agility in the context of an idea, the survival of
companies in their environment. The generally accepted thesis is that agility en-
sures this survival. The logical antithesis, on the other hand, that non-agility does
not ensure survival. This is rarely said. If we exaggerate, out comes: Non-agility
leads to ruin. But what is non-agility? First, we have to define this term.
186
Table 4.1 Important dialectical approaches

Heraclitus Socrates
(535– (469– Plato (427– Aristotle Hegel Marx (1818–
475 BC) 399 BC) 374 BC) (384–322 BC) Kant (1724–1804) (1770–1831) 1883)
4
Core Dialectics as Dialectics as Dialectics as the Dialectic as a Dialectics as “logic

Dialectics as Dialectic as a
idea the study of research for way to the method to clarify of appearances” teaching to method of
the opposites the true and realization of the contradictions, without empirical bring thesis ascending from
that move the the good true part of logic basis and antithesis the abstract to
world essence = being to the higher the concrete and
level of as an antithesis
synthesis of man - nature
Principle Recognize Recognize Know the nature Recognize the Recognize the Find a Concretize the
the laws of the idea of thoughts contradiction meaninglessness of synthesis abstract
motion behind the your attempts at
thought explanation
Mind-Change: Changing the Way We Think and Act
One possible antonym, that is, the antithesis of agility, is inertia; another is im-
mobility. Inertia is a less absolute state than agility, so we opt for immobility. For
thinking in terms of thesis and antithesis, this seems a more appropriate pair of
opposites, especially since agility could also be translated as mobility, or even as
inertia.
Do we understand both - mobility and immobility - as a state, as an action or as
a result? Mobility can be anything, but is best understood as distinct from the state
of immobility, because only the state makes a comparison possible. Viewed in this
way, the state comes before the result, which requires evaluation - in the form of
measurement, for example. As a state, movability and immobility both belong
together, they are mutually dependent. How could we recognize something moving
if we could not distinguish it from something not moving? The deer lies in the
garden and does not move. It moves when we clap our hands. That shows life. Life
is shown by mobility. Immobility does not exclude life. The interplay of mobility
and immobility is life. From this first thought experiment, which is only an exam-
ple, follows the realization that one needs the other to even be recognized. An agile
mindset, in this sense, is an agile mindset. But it also needs immobility, so that the
change of state through the movement can be recognized at all.
Abolishing in the sense of “preserving” the opposition: this afterthought can
lead to a both/and assumption, mobility and immobility are both necessary for a
company to survive. Thus, some parts can be immobile and others can be mobile.
The overriding idea of movability at this point may not be state, but action.
Immobility is non-action, mobility is action. Non-action with reference to non-
mobility can mean letting something run or pausing. Action with reference to mov-
ability can mean to form something or to drive it. Both are always necessary, one
needs the other, otherwise the person gets out of breath (and so does the company).
Finally, the state created by movement - and even more so the result - is only rec-
ognizable through non-movement; in motion, movement can only be recognized as
such, but not as a result. From this second thought experiment, which is also just an
example, follows the realization that one needs the other to exist. An agile mindset
needs the recognition of state change by freezing in immobility. This can be a flash
of insight that runs through you and makes the previous thought “I realized some-
thing” solid.
The next step is lifting up in the sense of “lifting up” to a higher level. Mobility
and immobility are states that can exist at the same time and can lead to the other
state in different situations. A higher level could be the concept of adaptability.
Adaptability can be above agility and immobility, but not the other way around. If
we imagine agility - that is, agility - as the higher concept, then it would include
adaptability and non-adaptability as a precondition. That way around it makes little
sense, at least that one does not come to mind. The best way to know what a higher
level might be is to look for a higher-level idea. This higher-level idea can then be
traced back again. From this third step of thought, which is likewise only an ex-
ample, follows the realization that the higher idea can be found and that it is not
arbitrary, at least not within the same cultural sphere. But it follows even more: the
higher idea is what it is really all about if we really want to understand something.
That agility has to do with adaptability is surely clear to all of us. But that adapt-
ability is the higher idea, and that it must necessarily include the opposite of agility,
not so much. So our mindset also needs an adaptive logic of thought and action,
one might conclude. It emerges not only from movement, but also from i mmobility.
Meditation could be understood as a state of immobility and thus non-agility. And
so it is probably no surprise that this is what most sets thinking in motion in our
sense ... Really!
Everything Has Not Only Two Sides, but More

In our TeamworksPLUS® training, I introduce dialectical thinking, among
other things. It also helps in team development. I would like to give you a prac-
tical example of this: In an exercise, I divided two groups, each of which was to
work on a case and present us with a solution. I left the further structure open.
The two subgroups formed themselves. One group was formed around a par-
ticipant who can visualize well, the other around a participant who is relatively
dominant. Very different group dynamics emerged. At the end, I had the coop-
eration evaluated. The quiet subgroup around the visualization artist found the
joint work fruitful and harmonious. I asked what the idea of a good collabora-
tion was. They said “harmoniously coming to fruitful results”. The more lively
group also praised each other, but emphasized fruitful confrontation. They said
that they had dealt with each other constructively.
Now I put both groups side by side and we addressed the issue using dialec-
tics. The overarching idea is cooperation, one group’s thesis is harmony, the
other’s is confrontation. What does that mean when you resolve the opposites?
Cooperation requires both. What does it mean to preserve opposites? Everything
in its time, against the background of the situation and also the constellation.
And what does it mean when you find a next higher level? That could be “solv-
ing problems”, and that through cooperation or individual achievement.
Cooperation, in turn, is both confrontation and harmony, confrontation being
the direct introduction of contradictory ideas or even argumentation. Harmony,
on the other hand, can be an appreciative cooperation while maintaining one’s
own point of view, but it can also be adapting while refraining from taking one’s
own point of view. This breakdown into units of meaning makes it clearer what
is behind an evaluation and how much they can differ. This makes it easier to
allow for different attitudes and to move away from a “right attitude”. It also
helps to find an overriding principle, such as “We welcome confrontation when
it is directed towards resolution”.
4.3.3 Dialectical Practice
Let us go one step deeper into practice and concrete application in order to relieve
this approach of the suspicion that it is too abstract. I would like to apply this to two
examples that have to do with illuminating and clarifying the understanding of
something. I will take the understanding of collaboration and the understanding of
agility. In companies and teams, it’s always about developing a shared understand-
ing of something. What do we understand when we talk about something or do
something? Only shared understanding gives us the opportunity to exchange, but
also to behave in the sense of something. People with a flexible mindset in the
sense of ego-development are usually already trying to figure things out dialecti-
cally on their own. Those who have not yet (completely) arrived at this way of
thinking can be introduced in this way.
First, let us take the example of cooperation.
4.3.3.1 Teaching No 1: To Recognise Two Sides that Can

Become One
The thesis is that good team solutions need confrontation, the antithesis that they
need harmony. Is that an antithesis? Not if you think of it sequentially on top of
each other. That would be a possible synthesis. We have thereby “eliminated” the
antithesis. This eliminating can be a part of the path to effective cooperation.
Eliminating leads to the realization that nothing is better than the other because
both are two sides of the same coin. Which, moreover, dissolve in the definition of
the individual, yet almost everyone recognizes a different point at which harmony
turns into confrontation.
Let us take the example of agility: the thesis is that the working world of the
future needs agility for its survival; the antithesis that it needs the opposite. This is
only an antithesis if we think of it in terms of time. But if we find the answer in
chronological existence, that would be a possible synthesis. That “eliminates” the
opposition. This eliminating can be a part of the path to effective cooperation.
Eliminating leads to the realization that nothing is better than the other because
both are two sides of the same coin. Which, moreover, dissolve in the definition of
the individual, yet almost everyone recognizes a different point at which harmony
turns into confrontation.
4.3.3.2 Lesson No 2: Define Boundaries

If we want to preserve the opposition, we can find out that under certain conditions
harmony, under others confrontation helps to find a good solution. We can then try
to draw a line that is supra-individual. When does harmony become confrontation?
When we say something directly and bluntly, for example. Or when we do not let
up. Or all of the above. Boundaries need to be defined very precisely. That is the
insight of step 2 - and very well transferable to the corporate context.
In terms of agility, we can now draw boundaries between mobility and immobil-
ity. When is something in motion, when is it frozen? How do we recognize that?
This thinking helps us to become very concrete. We recognize agility, for example,
by 10 new ideas per week, immobility shows up in pausing in an all-hands and ri-
gidity when a project stalls for more than 14 days due to the inertia of a department.
4.3.3.3 Lesson No 3: Finding the Overarching Idea

The third step is about lifting up to a higher level. We can now ask ourselves what
is above cooperation. What is its purpose? For example, the solution of a challeng-
ing problem. In this approach, we may realize that even collaboration cannot stand
on its own. It is contrasted with individual work. Now we can explore both posi-
tions, collaboration and individual work, in descending order. In this way, we might
come to the conclusion that both need each other, a productive cooperation needs
the preparation of the individual and/or also his knowledge and point of view.
We already know what is above agility - adaptability. Its opposite is non-
adaptability. A non-adaptive company is one that does not position itself for digitali-
zation. What is it characterized by? And what, on the contrary, constitutes adaptabil-
ity in concrete terms? How can you recognize it as an action, as a state, as a result?
You can develop many thoughts from dialectical approaches, which are also
very helpful in the coaching context. This can challenge the thinking apparatus
quite a bit - and bring it forward.
4.3.4 Influencing Thinking Through Language
Dialectic has a lot to do with language. It helps linguistic thinking to get off the
ground. And language has a crucial meaning in our mindset context. Language can
remove the limits of thinking if it is able to touch the heart. To this end, I would like
to take a short excursion into the world of linguistics and cognitive science.
Thinking is language - or language is thinking. Language shapes thinking. It

controls our attention. That’s why we think so differently from the Aborigines.
While the latter have an inner compass even as toddlers and can immediately point
in the right direction when asked which way the wind is blowing, I’m writing here
about the “agile mindset” and trying my hand at generating a common u nderstanding.
I’m sure an alien with the power of language would think this is insane. But maybe
he would have overcome the level of language long ago, if thoughts and language
were one in his mind. That’s how far, according to my vague idea of the future, it
would actually have to come one day.
We only deal with the “agile mindset” because this term was able to form, be-
cause I was able to think it and capture it in the linguistic tangle of my culture.
When I look at it this way, I become more than aware of its relative insignificance.
Or also its creativity, because it expands the vocabulary and also the thinking by a
new idea, which connects the existing (only then language can dock).
The idea that language differences influence cognition is an old one. Johann
Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) and Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), for ex-
ample, were convinced of this. The linguists Edward Sapir (1884–1939) and
Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897–1941) studied the grammar of North American Indians
with the hypothesis that people who speak differently also think differently. Their
hypothesis became unfashionable in the 1970s, but experienced a revival in the
wake of the resurgence of neuroscience. More and more studies show that thinking
and language belong together, that one shapes the other - in both directions.
The cognitive scientist and linguist Lera Boroditsky [10] found that language-
cultural differences influence the reconstruction of events. This in turn even has
consequences for witness testimony. The researcher had subjects watch videos of
two men either intentionally or unintentionally popping balloons, breaking eggs,
and spilling drinks. They were later “interrogated.” The language of origin had in-
fluences on perception, for example Japanese and Spanish described the “perpetra-
tors” more passively.
People whose language contains only absolute expressions find their way
around unfamiliar areas far more easily than those who are guided by relative
terms. Absolute, for example, describes expressions such as south, north, west,
east, while “left” or “right” are relative. So if we do not know “left” or “right”, we
can orient ourselves more easily. We just know then that we have to go north, pe-
riod. And we know which way is north. I do not know that, for example, I am not
suited for survival in the jungle.
Evidence also shows that people who learn new color words also improve their
ability to distinguish colors. Lera Boroditsky: “What researchers call ‘thinking’ is
apparently really a collection of linguistic and non-linguistic processes.” For our
topic, this has a very central meaning!
Psychotherapy and coaching also make use of metaphoric language, but are
often not even aware of it. In my own practice, I have developed many formats that
are ultimately based on changing thinking through speaking. When I create a “life
mosaic”, for example, I feel out the words with my clients that they associate with
certain decisions in life.
I help to reframe the past through language. This includes re-evaluating and
reinterpreting events; I draw attention to what was previously unseen or unnoticed
and thus help clients to create a new world of the past that can also put the present
in a different light. We pour all this into motivating sentences and link it to inner
and outer images. In this way, the drama of a dismissal can become an opportunity
for a new beginning, and the failure to start a business can become a gain in knowl-
edge. It is not enough to learn new expressions or to use different words for an
experience. One must also be able to internalize it, that is, not only reproduce it, but
also produce it oneself, ergo reproduce it in other situations. There we have it
again, the logic of thought and action, which can be separated linguistically, but
can only be fruitfully used together.
In Anglo-American, there is the term self-authoring. People are guided to write
or rewrite their past, present and future. These are techniques that also work at the
corporate level. Language can be used to consciously shape thinking. It also
changes the image one has of oneself. In this way, one’s own needs and desires can
be explored in writing, which is very helpful for development. For example, if
people write down every morning or evening how their thoughts and actions have
changed today and what has triggered this, attention will automatically be focused
on this aspect. Try it out sometime.
4.3.5 Changing Thinking by Extending the Schema
You already know Jean Piaget from previous chapters. Jean Piaget coined the term
thinking schema. I will come back to it and bring in another aspect. Jean Piaget
called learning assimilation. If a schema changes, that is, if someone recognizes
something new, he called it accommodation.
For many adults, only assimilation takes place. It no longer changes the scheme:
we can learn something and come off summa cum laude in the doctorate, without
fundamental new perception, without accommodation. So it has to do not only with
linguistic ability, but with thinking ability, and not in the sense of what an intelli-
gence test measures. New linguistic content does not automatically produce a dif-
ferent consciousness.
Assimilation and accommodation are related. When a child realizes that sweets
are not only available in a suckable form as candy, but also frozen as ice cream, he
deepens his experience with sweets, learns about the taste of ice cream melting in
his mouth, and expands his schema of “sweet” to include frozen and non-frozen.
Similarly, when a leader learns through trial and error that questions are helpful in
getting a picture of a situation, he has the experience of being able to ask questions.
He has had the self-experience of asking questions (assimilation) and then possibly
adjusted his thinking pattern (accommodation). If the challenges of the environ-
ment can no longer be met by assimilation alone, then accommodation is needed.
Neurobiologically, much more must take place in the brain, neurons must fire more
strongly.
Jean Piaget recognized that cognition is not a reflection of reality. Every human
being experiences reality only through his assimilation schemes. He grasps what
these give, the rest he does not perceive at all. Only when the existing schemata are
not sufficient to adapt to the environment, existing thought schemata have to be
reshaped. He calls this equilibration; a new equilibrium must arise - adaptation to
environmental requirements.
This process is accompanied and supported by neuronal excitations. These de-
pend on the strength of the stimulus, the impulses. Whether they are auditory or
visual impulses is of secondary importance. Only one thing is true: different types
of sensory impressions that are processed together increase the neurobiological
stimulus. It is also a matter of the duration of the impulses. The more often some-
thing is repeated, the more likely it is to become second nature [13, 14].
4.3.6 Play!
Patterns of thought and action often become entrenched through further experi-
ence. In complex situations they are a danger. Here, I would like to quote James G.
March:
However, when experience is shaped by complexity, ambiguity, stochastic variability,

and limited sample sizes, as is often the case, repetition of success-whether through
trial and error learning, imitation, or selection-is likely to lead to suboptimal out-
comes [9].
We often think that experiential knowledge makes us smarter. We assume that we

have to train something. But the best ideas come when you improvise, experiment,
do something you never do otherwise. For example, I have been working with Lego
for a long time. Once, in a workshop, I forgot the floor tiles. This led to much more
creative ideas. So one mistake led to me discovering something new. It is always
like that, everywhere.Developing your own mindset also means doing what you
would otherwise never do. Playing freely, addressing someone, acting - Mind has
a lot to do with the head, however, it often gets going especially when doing some-
thing, sitting down on the floor and playing or just building away.
Innovation is the deviation from something that previously made up the experi-
ence. Just as genius and madness are close to each other, innovation and potential
demise somehow belong together. Something new threatens the old; it’s only easy
to incorporate if it’s not something truly new. I have seen this many times when
companies developed new business models and the new promised no sales but
hope, but the old currently ensured survival. Not infrequently, the new was then
sacrificed or kept small. It was too threatening for the employees.
New ideas rarely arise from planning, but often from the freedom of experimen-
tation and play. They are random products of letting go and letting fall. Through
playing not only a child, but also an adult learns to include other perspectives.
That’s why it always takes courage to consciously want to change, stretch and
shape your mindset. And desire!
James G. March says that people and companies tend to want to repeat their
own success and to put the experience they have gained so far at the forefront of
their attention. They solved new problems with old thinking. Play could help break
free from being cognitively imprisoned. Using Lego or other building blocks is just
one example.
Design Thinking as an agile method also could be a playful experience, if it ad-
dresses group mindset and not tools.
References
1. Von Kibéd, Matthias Varga. 2008. Basics der Systemischen Strukturaufstellungen: Eine
Anleitung für Einsteiger und Fortgeschrittene. München: Kösel.
2. Hofert, Svenja. 2016 and 2020. Agile Leadership (3rd edition). Wiesbaden: Springer
Gabler.
3. Feldman Barrett, Lisa. 2017. How emotions are made? London: Macmillan.
4. Roth, Gerhard, und Alica Ryba. 2017. Coaching, Beratung und Gehirn. Stuttgart: Klett-
Cotta.
5. Oestereich, Bernd, und Claudia Schröder. 2017. Das kollegial geführte Unternehmen.
Göttingen: Vahlen.
6. Ariely, Dan. 2008. Denken hilft zwar, nützt aber nichts: Warum wir immer wieder un-
vernünftige Entscheidungen treffen. München: Droemer.
References 195
7. Hofert, Svenja. 2017. Hört auf zu coachen. München: Kösel.

8. Kessels, Jos. 2016. Das Sokrates-Prinzip. München: dtv.
9. March, James G. 2016. Zwei Seiten der Erfahrung. Wie Organisationen intelligenter
werden können. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer.
10. Boroditsky, Lera. 2012. Wie die Sprache das Denken formt. Spektrum.de. http://www.
spektrum.de/news/wie-die-sprache-das-denken-formt/1145804. Zugegriffen: 31. Mai
2017.
11. Byron, Katie. 2002. Loving What Is: Four Questions That Can Change Your Life, with
Stephen Mitchell, New York: Harmony Books.
12. Chen, Angela. 2017. How emotions are made, Interview mit Lisa Feldman Barrett.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/10/15245690/how-emotions-are-made-neuroscience-
lisa-feldman-barrett. Accessed: 19. Sept. 2017.
13. Roth, Gerhard. 2002. Hirnforschung als Brücke zwischen Natur- und
Geisteswissenschaften. http://www.schulportal.bremerhaven.de/lfi/fachartikel/roth_
hirnforschung_2202.pdf. Zugegriffen: 5. Okt. 2017.
14. Schirp, Heinz. 2003. Neurowissenschaften und Lernen. Was können neurobiologische
Forschungsergebnisse zur Unterrichtsgestaltung beitragen? Die Deutsche Schule 95 (3):
304–316.
Case Studies for Agile Working
and Thinking 5
We are slowly coming to the end. In the last chapter, I will introduce you to some
organizational mindsets. These should serve as the best practice and inspiration.
We are slowly coming to the end. In the last chapter, I will introduce you to
some organizational mindsets. These are meant to serve as the best practice and
inspiration. Furthermore, you will receive three exercise cases to train your own
mindset or to work with it in your team. There are no sample solutions for this, only
possible approaches on how to proceed. The approaches you will develop will
come from a certain mindset. Try to compare this with what you have learned in the
chapter Ego Development (see p. 31 ff.). Then put the book aside, and after a few
days pursue completely different approaches. And then try to develop approaches
from all five Mindsets. I do this exercise in my seminar “Agile Leadership”. It will
be enlightening for you to produce solutions with a “different” mindset.
5.1 The Group: Otto GmbH & Co KG
Otto GmbH & Co KG is considered a model for an agile company in Germany. It

has a seven-member Executive Board, which includes two women. Alexander
Birken has been Chairman of the Executive Board since January 1, 2017. Dr.
Rainer Hillebrand has been on the Executive Board since 1999 and is responsible
for e-commerce and business intelligence.
cc • Type: agile for survival.

• Mindset of the managers: probably effective with flexible parts.
• Value focus: green and yellow.

198 5 Case Studies for Agile Working and Thinking
Otto is currently number two in online retail by a wide margin - ahead of Zalando.
In total, 15 teams are working in parallel on the further development of otto.de. The
product range of Amazon and Otto hardly differs. In the battle for market share in
online retail, Otto focuses on customer service in comparison to Amazon, for ex-
ample. There is extreme market and competitive pressure. The importance of the
topic of agility must also be understood against this background. It is a matter of
survival. Agile has grown naturally, built on a family and collaborative culture.
This makes change easier than it probably would have been in an authoritarian
culture.
Otto takes a decentralised approach with its subsidiaries. Much responsibility
has been shifted to the management of the companies. At the same time, the Otto
Group has an active network. This is organised by a management division that
holds up to 220 events of various sizes each year. These include best practice clubs
and conferences bringing together all the sales and marketing directors in the Otto
Group - the Group Marketing Board. “This is how we create a culture of construc-
tive exchange, where we share defeats as well as golden nuggets. This kind of
network economy is lived intensively at our company - live and digitally, by cen-
trally providing the formal structure and collaboration tools” [1].
Otto therefore allows its own corporate cultures, but at the same time creates
identification at a higher level. There is something common that is shared - experi-
ential knowledge.
I do not know in what form defeats are actually communicated. However, the
concept is typical for agile companies, for example, there is a Failure Friday on
which the management presents its pipe failures to the employees.
Without such formats, silo thinking and competition often develop between
subsidiaries and divisions, leading to the hiding of defeats. One way to counteract
this is a ritual that celebrates defeats and declares them as learnings.
5.1.1 Agile Cultural Change
Otto rightly did not introduce the cultural change as a project, but communicated it
as an ongoing process [1]. It was important to keep the company flexible in order
to be able to react immediately to customer needs. The focus of the culture change
is the transformation to a learning organization.
This does not define goals, but learning itself as a task and process. The Otto
Academy supports internal training. The focus of the training is on communicative
elements such as conducting retrospectives.
5.1 The Group: Otto GmbH & Co KG 199
I notice that many thought leaders actively blogging, writing and speaking on
the Internet come from the Otto school, such as Conny Dethloff, who has already
been introduced here. Otto apparently encourages its own employees to go public.
At least it does not seem to put obstacles in their way like some others who are
afraid their best employees might be poached.
On the way to becoming a learning organisation, Otto has institutionalised the
continuous improvement of its work processes. In the Scrum Framework, this is
done via the retrospective. In order to learn from the customer, optimization is in-
stitutionalized, as Sprint Review, Design Thinking approach or through Lean
Management. Knowledge is shared, for example through pairing, that is, the col-
laboration of experienced and less experienced people, job rotation, job shadow-
ing, communities of practice and cross-organizational workshops.
Otto integrates various approaches and methods and is not oriented towards a
single model. It handles a lot in-house, so it seems to be little dependent on the drip
of external consultants. This can also be seen as a risk if, for example, consultants
are committed to a certain approach or if the consultants have become part of the
system and have lost the view from the outside. In such cases, I always advise
bringing in other consultants to cooperate with the in-house consultants. I would
replace consultants who oppose this.
Among other things, Otto uses the “Viable System Model“according to Stafford
Beer, a cybernetics model that helps to control a company in its complexity. The
“Theory of Constraints“by Eliyahu Goldratt is also used at Otto. This so-called
“Theory of Constraints” helps, among other things, in marketing and sales to free
up capacities, reduce lead times and costs and improve adherence to delivery dates.
In retail, overstocks and shortages are to be optimized.
Otto has recognized that conventional approaches see the organization primar-
ily as a machine that needs to be controlled. The psychological aspect is left out of
the equation. The need to create high-performance teams that improve themselves
demands that this be included. High-performance teams need an intellectual level,
but even more so a good relationship level. So in addition to the substantive intel-
lectual agenda, there needs to be an emotional one [2].
5.1.2 Mindset of the Managers
At Otto, what is particularly striking is the consistency with which the cultural
change is being driven forward from almost all sides. It seems to me that this is also
significantly influenced by the presence and spirit of the company founder’s son
Michael Otto. This is not necessarily a charismatic figure, but a reflective one who
addresses the change in one’s thinking. In his speeches I perceived a very con-
nected thinking with a high awareness of social responsibility and the importance
of learning.
Furthermore, a culture of collaboration, which is apparently also anchored at
the board level, is conducive to this. Agility was based on an understanding that
corresponds to a collegial value cluster (cooperative style in our case) - so the men-
tal leap was not great.
Last but not least, competitive pressure is likely to play a significant role.
Against this background, the individual board members seem less formative as in-
dividuals; they do not reshape the original idea, but develop it further.
The new board member Alexander Birken, for example, studied business ad-
ministration and actually comes from a controlling background. He spent several
years in the USA.
I have picked out two quotes from Alexander Birken which for me show think-
ing in the effective phase with an appeal to flexible mode. The quotes express a
rather fixed world view of this. At the same time, the section on change and
Generation Y (second quote) shows an acceptance of contradictions.
We are the world champions of transformation. We have created a tremendous spirit

of optimism and are in the process of turning the hierarchy pyramid upside down.
There are self-organizing innovation days and colleagues discuss openly across ranks
and positions. That would have been unthinkable five years ago. I'm often asked about
my ideas of a proper lifetime balance, but I don't think in such categories at all. What
I do has to be my life and I have to enjoy doing it from the heart. We want to create
this feeling throughout the Group. Employees should work here because they want to
set standards.
And:
We did not develop our new mission statement of setting standards together in isola-
tion on the Executive Board, but involved many thousands of employees. We already
have a very high energy level in the Group. But we will never achieve an ideal.
Change is a permanent process. Generation Y is irritating older colleagues with its
demands on the working environment, and the next generation will have different
ideas again.
Dr. Rainer Hillebrand is responsible for e-commerce. He completed officer train-

ing in the German Armed Forces and studied economics and organizational sci-
ences at the Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg (University of the German
5.2 ISEKI-Maschinen GmbH 201
Armed Forces in Hamburg). For 2 years, he worked as an independent business and

media consultant.Let us listen in on him:
My role, for example, is no longer to tell people what to do. Rather, I have to find the
best people, get them excited about a topic, network them with each other, and keep
their backs open so that they can work. And this work is not done in years-long proj-
ects, but in time boxes and agile work rhythms.
By using the phrase “no longer” he himself describes a change - before it had obvi-
ously been different. But now he sees himself primarily as someone who organizes
collaboration and networking at the front. Further, his focus is on inspiring others.
So he describes a communication-oriented leadership role.At another point it be-
comes clear that he takes a differentiated view of things - for example when he
talks about the error culture:
Difficult question. In principle, a culture of error is important. But here I make a very
clear distinction between routine and innovation processes. It's like heart surgery.
Today, it's a routine process in which no mistakes are allowed to happen. It was quite
different with the pioneering heart transplantation of Prof. Barnard. - In the start-up
phase of a new era, mistakes are part of the learning process.
Someone with a less flexible mindset might lean more towards either or here. He
solves the issue by limiting the permission for mistakes to the innovation area. This
differentiation makes sense, it should be communicated clearly and unambigu-
ously: There is a difference between errors due to deliberate experimentation, pro-
cess errors, and errors due to incompetence or lack of resources. Not all errors are
therefore to be welcomed equally.
There remains a grey area. Let us assume that someone in accounting discovers
an insane optimization potential or a fundamental error in thinking through the ac-
cidental use of a wrong field (i.e., actually incompetence) during a routine entry -
then this error would be conducive to innovation after all.
5.2 ISEKI-Maschinen GmbH
ISEKI-Maschinen GmbH is located in Osterath, a district of Meerbusch near

Düsseldorf. The company converts Japanese agricultural machinery into sweepers,
snow clearers and mowers. Customers are administration and industrial companies
as well as others who need to maintain outdoor areas. The company has been in
business for 40 years.
5.2.1 Organization
The company has 170 employees and a branch office in Leipzig. ISEKI’s success
is based on a strong dealer network and personal customer contact. Martin
Hoffmann currently still runs the company together with his father Siegfried, but
has largely free rein.
cc •• Type: agile with passion.

•• Mindset of managers: presumably flexible.
•• Value focus: green.
“I’ve never been interested in lean or agile. What interests me is the attitude behind
it,” says Martin Hoffmann, making his statement. He did not start with agile meth-
ods, but with a changed attitude to the topic of leadership and company organisa-
tion. The methods only followed afterwards.
Martin Hoffmann tried out holacracy with the 50 employees in his division.
This approach led to confusion among the employees. There was no common un-
derstanding of “self-organization”. But more importantly, there was a lack of a
common goal and vision. Nevertheless, Holacracy brought movement into the
company.
Furthermore, Martin Hoffmann introduced “the agile separation of powers”, by
which he means that he formed the first cross-departmental teams with different
roles. One role was the product owner, who sets the vision, another role was a
moderating coach. Kanban boards helped visualize the processes and make them
transparent throughout the company. That way, others saw the changes as well.
This was gradually expanded and now the boards are spread throughout the com-
pany and visible to all.
Everyone knows immediately what is currently being worked on by whom.
According to Hoffmann, this has also put an end to the grumbling about too little
commitment to work. With the help of a consultant, another level is introduced that
visualizes the learning process in the company across all departments. This is
called a “metaboard”. It can also be viewed by all employees. Here, everyone can
track progress and setbacks on the way to a learning company.
Despite the new supportive management style, self-organization did not suc-
ceed immediately. “Without commitment from the employees, self-organization
will not work. At least two percent must feel at home in the topic and have the de-
sire to drive the new form of management forward. But everyone else must also be
brought on board,” says Martin Hoffmann.
Coaches have therefore been trained, the aim being one coach for every ten
employees.
More and more employees are joining cross-functional teams at their own re-
quest. Sales and the service department are slowly dissolving as separate depart-
ments. Purchasing is also already very far ahead and works self-organized. Many
teams are now also hiring themselves. There is no HR department, only one em-
ployee for payroll accounting, otherwise everyone develops themselves and the
teams also hire colleagues on their own responsibility.
5.2.3 Mindset
Martin Hoffmann himself says that he had not imagined meaningful work as
“Command & Order”, even for himself, and also gives this as the reason for the
change. His statements express a flexible mindset.
My colleagues became friends with the new management style at different speeds. I
kept hearing: "But you have to bang the table sometimes, too". Not everyone can
stand this irresponsible void that arises at first. We have therefore built up coaching
skills. Interested employees learn in a two-month course how to support the team on
the path to self-organisation. How do I take a meta-position? How do I lead a retro-
spective? How do I create an experience space in the first place?
Or:
Particularly important for me is my self-reflection as a leader. I take half an hour every

morning to do this. I reflect on my plans, my actions and my goals and record them in
a journal. NLP training also helped me a lot. I learned to find a language for things
that I could not have named before. A coach accompanied me and taught me a lot
about systemic thinking. This makes it easier for me to recognize what is essential in
my company, in our system [3].
Here, Martin Hoffmann brings something very central to the table: self-reflection.
This is not a matter of course for managers. The more traditional the environments
and departments, the less open self-reflection often is. Accompaniment by a coach
is helpful, especially if the coach can point not only to the systemic connections but
also to psychological ones.
5.2.4 Interview with Martin Hoffmann
Please Describe Yourself and Your Company Briefly

Our company has been around for almost 50 years. I have been with the company
since 2009 and with the management since 2014. Our main business is the upgrad-
ing and marketing of municipal tractors. We buy small tractors in Japan and convert
them into municipal vehicles. As a municipal vehicle, the machines can then mow
lawns, clear snow, sweep and much more. Our business therefore includes market-
ing and after-sales service, but also the development, manufacture and assembly of
tractors, components and attachments. In addition, we have also been trading in
electric transporters of the MEGA and GOUPIL brands for several years.
Until 2014, like many other medium-sized companies, we were organised in a
classic departmental structure, with many decisions being taken centrally. Since
2015, we have started to form self-organised teams and this year we expect to have
all colleagues at the site in Meerbusch within this structure.
What Is Your Attitude Toward Leadership?

I see leadership as a skill that needs to be learned and practiced like any other skill.
While it is absolutely clear in our technical fields that you need the appropriate
training, an understanding of leadership in everyday work is only slowly emerging.
Leadership, to me, once means coming to terms with oneself so that someone who
takes on leadership roles can separate their own emotions from those of their col-
leagues. So there is a need for an ability to self-reflect. Leadership is therefore al-
ways linked to the ability to lead oneself. This side of leadership ultimately makes
it possible to lead a team and oneself in the first place.
For me, leadership in a team means providing the necessary support so that a
team can find out what it needs. Depending on the situation, this means taking an
active approach and actively accompanying a team, especially in the first steps, but
also enduring the state of uncertainty and allowing a team to gain experience
through questions and feedback.
What Experiences Drove You to Transform Your Family Business?

Before joining the company, I worked as a software developer. Here, I was already
able to observe in large companies how little of the time is actually spent serving
the customer and how much time is spent playing politics and arguing about trivi-
alities. When I joined our company, I first thought - very naively from today’s point
of view - that as the boss I could just sort things out in a way that would be good
for everyone involved. Then I quickly realised that it was not that simple. In the
beginning, I could also observe how I quickly submerged myself in the day-to-day
business instead of devoting myself to the fundamental issues of the organization.
After the first few years and experiences of this kind, I was already very frus-
trated because nothing was happening. Colleagues came to me and told me about
their needs. No sooner did I address them than new problems arose elsewhere. At
the time, I saw everything in cause-and-effect terms. Therefore, it was difficult for
me to get a handle on the issues.
It was only through my first contact with other forms of management that I then
found approaches to solving our problems. I first had to develop myself step by
step in order to then build up my understanding of systemic interrelationships.
These hardships and insights then led me to fundamentally change our company
organization.
What Are the Challenges of Self-Organization?

Self-organisation requires a high level of personal maturity. Not in all colleagues,
but in a sufficient number. Without this maturity, emotions and factual issues as
well as principles and rules are often confused with each other. The task of organis-
ing oneself is not understood and instead the effort to organise oneself takes on
strange forms. The challenge, as I see it, is to stay consistently on the ball and at the
same time to be able to wait for the time to develop naturally. People - including
colleagues - need time to develop.
What Role Does Learning Play for Your Employees?

We have really undergone a major cultural change here. Whereas it used to be the
exception rather than the rule to read a book or to seek external training, today
many books in the new library are often out of print. Those who have internalized
the importance of learning are increasingly seen reading in the company. We are
certainly still at the beginning here, because learning together and from each other
is not yet well developed. In my opinion, however, learning is the only way we will
be able to create good customer solutions in the future.
How Does the Lean Idea Combine with Self-Organization?

Self-organisation is not an end in itself. For us, it is the demand on ourselves and
thus our organization that we align ourselves with the customer. Each for himself
and all together. This alignment is not always easy, nor does sharing a common
sense answer all questions. Therefore, for us, the Lean idea offers another good
orientation. We can thus examine ourselves in a simpler way by asking: What value
do we create for the customer? Which processes (value chains) take place for this
purpose and do they serve the customer?
You Have Trained 10% Coaches in Your Company. What Kind of People Are
They Who Are Good at Coaching?
We are trying to get 10%. This would correspond to just under 20 colleagues at our
company. Since we want to promote personal development, we regularly make of-
fers where colleagues can try out new skills and experience themselves. This was
the case with our coach training this year. We had about 15 volunteers sign up for
this, coming from a wide variety of backgrounds. Of these 15 participants, perhaps
5 will later become good team coaches. I believe that it is diversity that is critical
here. The ones who embrace diversity and who are attracted to the topic of coach-
ing are the ones who make it later. They are the ones who dare to bring new skills
into their teams and who also overcome the initial resistance.
5.3 Sipgate GmbH
The company sipgate emerged from the portal billiger-telefonieren.de, a successful

start-up of the New Economy. It is one of the first VoIP providers. Today, 120 col-
leagues work in an office in Düsseldorf harbor. The teams are self-organized and
have names like “Scrubs”, “Springfield” or “Princess”. They each have their own
Scrum Master, who removes obstacles and ensures compliance with Scrum rules.
At sipgate there are five office dogs and the beard quota among the men is probably
more than 50% according to the website eyeball.
I would like to describe sipgate as “natural born agile”, that is, as a green coop-
erative company.
cc •• Type: agile forever.

•• Mindset of the managers: probably effective.
•• Value focus: green.
The company sipgate has never been a traditional, hierarchical company, teamwork
has always played a major role. Over the years, teamwork has changed in its nature
and composition. In the past, “cross-functional” meant the composition of devel-
oper, designer, product owner and scrum master. Today, teams also include text
people, customer support, and marketing. These are fixed and self-assembling.
Peer recruiting takes place, meaning the teams hire their own junior staff. There are
no managers or team leaders. Coaches help build structure. There is no hammock
at sipgate, even though no one has to work overtime. According to interviews, the
5.3 Sipgate GmbH 207
management does not think much of home offices. Teamwork is also communica-
tion. A special feature is that sipgate employees are required to attend two training
courses per year.
The first cross-functional teams were formed from the existing silo groups of
web, Java, telephony. Agile working also includes Open Friday, which the com-
pany invented. Here, you can also express the desire to switch to another team. The
law of two feet, which is typical for open space formats, applies: If you realize that
you can’t learn or contribute any more, use your two feet and go somewhere else.
5.3.2 Mindset
In response to the question “What was the best advice you received during your
start-up phase?” at Deutsche-Startups.de, Tim Mois, one of the two founders and
managing directors of sipgate, answers: “‘Your next colleague must be a control-
ler’ - from my father. That saved us in 2001. Besides, the controller is very nice,
still at sipgate today and has a dachshund” [4].
This is a typical answer for the agile scene as well as the agency and start-up
world - just as interviews of the two founders show a quite consistent world view.
The view is centrally focused on one’s own company, one’s own way of life and
work. This also allows them to concentrate fully on it. Fundamental questioning of
one’s own perspective is not discernible in the interviews.
The above answer combines different aspects and rather indicates thinking in
the effective phase. Tim Mois is taking advice from his father. Perhaps he likes to
make his decisions by involving others. However, the “Besides, the controller is
very nice” also reflects an image of how something should be. I would imagine that
in this company a certain style - collegial and friendly - is preferred to sweep con-
flicts under the carpet. A look at the reviews on Kununu shows that the communica-
tion between employees and management has room for improvement. The term
“chaos” is used.
From similar agency and start-up contexts, the typical challenges in a “natural-
born-agile” environment are those that are most evident with growth and under
competitive pressure:
• Dealing with people who think differently, are differently socialised and moti-
vated (e.g. people who do not work for idealistic reasons).
• Groupthink, especially also in peer recruiting.
• Conflict management.
• Demarcation between private and professional life.
5.4 City of Ängelholm
Första agila kommun at sverige: The 57th largest city in Sweden has the only pro-
fessed agile administration in Europe. The city has scoured the agile methodologi-
cal toolbox for elements that make sense to complement traditional processes. In
administration, work is usually thought of as a chain. Everyone works on one link
in parallel, real cooperation does not take place in this way and does not make
sense in most administrative cases of a city. This is quite different from process
orientation. By focusing on processes instead of issues, many things can be done
more effectively. Process orientation means alignment with procedures.
cc •• Type: agile, because it makes things better.

•• Mindset of managers: probably right to effective.
•• Value focus: orange with green.
Administrations are known for their silo thinking. Each department works on its
own topics, collaboration and cross-functional work and thinking are not in de-
mand. Therefore, it is particularly difficult to drive agile change in such a context.
The agilization project nevertheless used agile methods. For example, the city
pulled in more than 200 employees, trade unionists, managers and politicians and
involved them in shaping the new administration.
The organisational structure of the City of Ängelholm was then re-established
and is now process-oriented to meet the needs of the citizen. Thus, a service centre
handles 70% of the citizens’ inquiries in two levels of difficulty. Behind this, the
clerks work on 30% of the other cases. The continuous improvement of this work
is a top priority.
But up to this point Ängelholm is not really agile. The real agile element is the
so-called arena. This arose from the idea that not all citizen requests can be an-
swered satisfactorily. Arenas can now be formed for these requests, overarching -
that is, cross-functional and temporary - working groups that reflect on and solve
such cases. In doing so, they cooperate and also look at their own work with a he-
licopter view. The cases should be solved in up to five meetings. If this is not pos-
sible, a project develops from this. This is led by designated moderators. The proj-
ect was accompanied by a Stockholm-based consulting firm.
5.4 City of Ängelholm 209
5.4.2 Agile Mindset
A particular requirement in this context is to do one and not let the other. When are
agile approaches useful and when are traditional ones? An agile approach is always
useful when a problem cannot be solved with the previous approach. This can be
when the administration has identified a citizen’s need but cannot satisfy it, or
when the level of service is not high enough, for example when processing takes
too long or public safety is threatened.
The agile-verwaltung.org website, which details the case, gives an example of
this:
“Ibrahim, 18, has recently been recognised as entitled to asylum in Sweden and
lives in Strövelstorp, a municipality in Ängelholm. Ibrahim wants to find a job
quickly and is in urgent need of Swedish language training, counselling, social
networking and crisis support. In order to meet these different needs of Ibrahim,
the administration is forming an agile process team covering the following profes-
sionals, among others:
• Ibrahim himself
• Company
• Club life
• Employment agency
• Adult Education
• Career and study guidance
• Interpreter
• Culture and Leisure” [5].
In this way, a cross-functional team is formed to solve the case. In order to drive
this solution forward, it is appropriate that moderators lead these teams - as was
also the case in Ängelholm. The moderators should be familiar with certain for-
mats, such as “fishbowl”, a method of leading discussions that is also suitable for
smaller groups. Here, the case is outlined, one person draws or writes, another asks
questions, the rest listen and take notes. First, the problem must be analysed in
detail. After that, hypotheses are gathered and then solutions are worked out. These
separate process steps enable systematic elaboration.
5.5 Exercises
Finally, I put together anonymous cases to show you how Mindset has a practical
impact at an organisational level and what challenges can arise in different situa-
tions. The exercises also indirectly show ego development levels, although you have
to be very careful with the assignment. Group dynamics and organizational culture
always play a bigger role than the maturity of individual players. The decisive factor
for the organizational logic is above all the mindset of the top management. There
are not really any model solutions for the cases. All of them can be discussed in
many ways. However, it makes sense to always consider the following levels:
• General conditions (e.g. market).

• Organization (set-up, structure, space, etc.).
• Team (interlocking with organization, structure, identity, etc.).
• Individual (role in the team, motivation etc.).
The analysis quadrants in Fig. 5.1 help here, and a look at the chart Self-
Organization (Fig. 3.3) also provides orientation. They always show an internal
and an external perspective as well as factors that are important in relation to this.
However, one should not get stuck on this. The information in the exercise cases
Fig. 5.1 Analysis quadrants

5.5 Exercises 211
is not sufficient for a deep analysis. But this is not necessary for a first working
hypothesis. This should always be fluid anyway and understood more as an idea
of how to get started.
5.5.1 Exercise Case 1: The Value-Oriented Craft Enterprise
Kristina has taken over the long-established business “Sanitär Meyer” from her
father together with her brother. The business has now been in existence for
87 years, the father has been at the helm for 50 years, but now he is going into well-
earned retirement. He wants to stay out of it and give his children a free hand. The
company specialises in plumbing and bathrooms in the regional area. So it sells
branded products from sanitary manufacturers and offers the craftsman service
around it. But digitalisation also affects them [2].
About half of the 32 employees have been with the company for more than
30 years. The average age is 48 years. There is one technical and one commercial
trainee per year. Not all of them could be taken on in the past years due to the
strong economic fluctuations and the low fluctuation among the older employees.
Now the company is facing many challenges due to the change: The new manage-
ment, mainly represented by Kristina, wants to become more “agile”. It urgently
needs innovations to secure its future.
5.5.1.1 The Industry Situation

The entire plumbing industry is resisting digitalization. The father refused a web-
site himself until 2016. He agrees with master craftsman Holger Steup, who is
quoted as follows in the online portal “Warenausgang.com“on January 17, 2017:
“The offer is not for every customer. There are people who are handy and can
install bathtubs. They can find happiness there. But the larger group needs the ser-
vice around it and professional installation in addition to the bathtub.”
Amazon carries over 110,000 products in the “Toilet Fixtures” subcategory
alone. There are various sanitary products in the Prime program. There are some
suppliers who have a completely different opinion than Mr. Steup.
5.5.1.2 The Management Mindset

Daughter Kristina sees this development. She does not think that the sanitary in-
dustry, of all sectors, will be spared the developments that have affected all trades.
Craftsmen are increasingly providing services alone, and these are becoming more
digital and more specialised. No one can keep up with the prices of a specialized
retailer or even wholesaler anymore. Kristina wants to have an app developed
through which customers can get 24/7 support for their installation questions. To
become more digital, she is even thinking of hiring a computer scientist. Together
with a regional university of applied sciences, she is planning a project called
“Sanitary industry digital 2030”. Furthermore, she would like to put more effort
into large-scale projects. To do so, she wants to become more agile. Because more
and more clients are demanding agility from their customers as well. This is also
the case with a potential major customer.
Her brother wants to continue the company in the tradition of her father. He
believes that customers still want everything from a single source. He thinks and
acts in a value-oriented way, by which he means reliable, customer-oriented and
quality-conscious. For him, the most important thing is that the employees get their
salary and can feed their families. The father tries to stay out of it, but in the inti-
mate family circle he supports the brother.
Kristina, on the other hand, believes in giving meaning to employees and invests
a lot in communication and actions, some of which are spiritual in nature. She ex-
pects commitment in return. She is often disappointed that so little comes back. In
her world view, there should be no such thing as service by the book.
5.5.1.3 The Mindset of the Employees

The veteran employees are critical and dismissive of innovations. They are used to
a patriarchal management style from their father. In the morning they get their or-
ders and in the afternoon they have “worked through” them. If something has to be
decided, they call the management. In front of the customer, everyone behaves the
way they are. No technician sees himself as a salesman. For rare larger projects
there are two people who are suitable as project managers. However, they are al-
ways overworked. Otherwise the company has no hierarchies.
The company recently hired a young trainee who is very familiar with digital
topics and contributes many ideas. The suggestions bounce off the technicians.
5.5.1.4 The Company Situation

It has been up and down over the last few years. Economically, the most interesting
are large orders from companies that often secure salaries for several months.
Questions for you:
• Are these even suitable prerequisites for agility? Look at agility from the per-
spective of corporate management, leadership, philosophy and practical project
management.
• What are the challenges in terms of innovation and agility?
5.5 Exercises 213
• When you look at the ego development stages: What mindsets do you suspect
are in the organization?
• If you put yourself in all five stages of development, what solutions emerge
from these different “glasses”?
5.5.2 Exercise Case 2: The Traditional Shipping Group
You get a call from the HR department at Müller Werft AG. The company with
5000 employees worldwide, 3000 of them in Northern Germany, is undergoing a
transformation and is to become more agile. At least that is what the new chairman
of the board has proclaimed. It is unclear to everyone what he means by this. But
the whole thing has a high priority and is being treated internally like a new reli-
gion, which is more unsettling than motivating. The company has a military ship-
ping division that is profitable and a container shipping division that is in the red.
The board sees potential above all in the yacht repair and refit business.
The industry situation is desolate. There has been overcapacity for years, weak
global trade and mergers everywhere. Monitoring ships and improving fleet effi-
ciency are becoming decisive competitive factors. The self-propelled ship is also an
issue. At the same time, the structures in the industry are very conservative.
5.5.2.1 The Mindset of the Management Board

The new CEO comes from a background outside the automotive industry. For him,
efficiency is paramount. He is well aware that digitalization plays a crucial role, but
he looks primarily at KPIs and numbers. The COO has been with the company for
a long time and sees the employees who are afraid for their jobs. He recognizes that
the future depends crucially on how the company sets itself up now, and has many
ideas about this. He is equally aware that the middle layer is a crippling layer in this
company in particular, radical restructuring is inevitable. The CFO is also new on
board, acts politically and has more of an interest in opening up new business areas,
because the company is no longer competitive with its current ones.

The veteran employees are afraid of losing their jobs. The middle managers are
insecure. Their management style, which is partly goal-oriented and partly coop-
erative and friendly, is suddenly no longer in demand. They are making trouble
with the young academics. They want more responsibility. The new management
board is unsettling with unclear announcements such as “more agility”. Many em-
ployees wonder whether they are generally no longer in demand.

It has been going down and down the last few years. The company is not special-
ized enough. At the same time, it has slept through the topic of digitalization for
itself.
In a Welt article of July 26, 2016, Claus Brandt, head of the Maritime Economics
Competence Centre at PwC, is quoted as saying, “In recent years, German shipping
companies have confined themselves strongly to the role of maritime transport
service provider ... Advancing digitalisation is now forcing them to deepen their
service portfolio and cover the logistics chain more comprehensively” [6].
Amazon and Google are becoming more realistic as competitors.
Questions for you:
• Are these even suitable prerequisites for agility? Look at agility from the per-
spective of corporate management, leadership, philosophy and practical project
management.
• How might one deal with vague requirements on the board side?
5.5.3 Exercise Case 3: The Idealistic Start-Up
The three founders already know each other from their studies. Tom is a computer
scientist, Felix an economist and Karl a designer. An ideal trio that always got
along well - also because they wanted to build a better world together, create an
internet-based social start-up, do everything differently than the “Alphas” (their
fathers were like that). They buttered it up, and thanks to Tom’s family legacy, no
loans were necessary. After a few years, the company had 120 employees. And of
course, they were working agile with Scrum from the start. The all-hands every
Friday became an institution early on. The founders did not want hierarchies. These
arose informally, for example, because the accounting department needed a re-
sponsible person to sign the documents. When more and more employees stopped
coming to the office altogether (of course there were flexible working hours and
home office as the mood took them), they installed five team leaders. These se-
lected the three based on seniority: Those who had been there a long time were
5.5 Exercises 215
usually also best friends and got the job. Eventually, Tom decided to quit. The re-
maining managers were aware that the company would continue to grow and
needed structure. So they decided to fill the position with Claudia, who had been
selected by an executive search firm. On the one hand Claudia seems competent,
on the other hand she is easy-going enough for the company.
5.5.3.1 The Mindset of the Management Board

As Claudia learns the ropes, she often throws her hands up in horror: There is no
structure. Decisions are made this way and that way. There are no basics on how to
do things, neither in finance nor in human resources. She quickly realizes that the
two men shy away from conflict. They had started the company because they be-
lieved in something and got along well. Now, it is actually time to take action, but
all decisions are now made in the back room. Power behaviour is frowned upon
among the staff, so they shy away from open communication. Claudia senses that
they are not at peace with themselves about cracking down. They hesitate. This
makes her feel insecure. When she experiences a staff event (all-hands) where two
people dissect her personal life in detail, she becomes uneasy, especially since she
has noticed that there are also irregularities in the financial area. She cannot shake
the feeling that the founders have completely lost the helm and are only operating
on the details. She notices this when she overhears conversations in which her col-
leagues reprimand unimportant mistakes instead of seeing the context and clearly
stating what is actually at stake.

The employees are divided into new and old. The old employees came on board
early and mostly come from the founders’ environment. At the time, they were all
idealistic, motivated, young, and inspired by the belief that work must have mean-
ing. They found that in the start-up. The new employees, on the other hand, are less
committed. For them, it is important that they have all the freedom in the world,
can come and go whenever they want, bring dogs and children with them ... all no
problem. All are convinced that this way of working is right. Very few have doubts.
They realize that this cannot go on much longer. They originally wanted to get
stuck in and help shape things, but quickly became demotivated because it was
interpreted as power behavior. When they applied for the new team leader posi-
tions, they got a stop card from the founders. They were not good enough, they
said. They are now putting all their hopes in Claudia, who obviously looks more at
the big picture...

It has been going up and up over the last few years. A new idea, a booming busi-
ness. It has easy to grow when customers are snatching the product out of your
hand. But now the first competition has emerged. The market seems saturated, a
redistribution is setting in.
Questions for you:
• Look at agility in relation to this case from the lens of business control, leader-
ship, philosophy and practical project management.
• If you put yourself in all five stages of development, what solutions emerge
from these different views?
References
1. Hillebrand, Rainer. 2016. Otto Group: Hungrig nach der besten Lösung. Jane Uhlig’s Mag-
azin, 29. July. http://www.janeuhlig.de/rainer-hillebrand-otto-group-hungrig-nach-der-
besten-loesung/. Zugegriffen: 10. Mai 2017.
2. Birken, Alexander, im Interview mit Martin Mehringer. 2017. Manager Magazin,
18. Mai. http://www.manager-magazin.de/koepfe/versandhandel-interview-mit-otto-chef-
alexander-birken-a-1147872.html. Zugegriffen: 10. Mai 2017.
3. Hoffmann, Martin, im Interview mit Janine Kreienbeck. 2017. Lean Knowledge
Base, 8. Mai. https://www.lean-knowledge-base.de/iseki-organisation-der-zukunft-
selbstorganisation/. Zugegriffen: 10. Mai. 2017.
4. Hüsing, Alexander, im Interview mit Tim Mois: Ein guter Rat: Wenn dein Pferd tot ist,
steig ab. 2017. Deutsche Startups, 11. Mai. https://www.deutsche-startups.de/2017/05/11/
ein-guter-rat-wenn-dein-pferd-tot-ist-steig-ab/.
5. Steinbrecher, Wolf. 2016. Ängelholm – die erste Agile Kommune Schwedens. https://
agile-verwaltung.org/2016/02/25/aengelholm-die-erste-agile-kommune-schwedens/.
Zugegriffen: 10. Mai 2017.
6. Preuß, Olaf. 2017. Wie die Digitalisierung das Geschäft wandelt. https://www.welt.de/
regionales/hamburg/article157312904/Wie-die-Digitalisierung-das-Reederei-Geschaeft-
wandelt.html. Zugegriffen: 10. June 2017.
Better Places for All of Us
6
In this chapter, I have presented various practical examples that show different
mindsets.
Mindset is the new big thing! I had this impulse shortly after agile methods re-
ally took off 2016. The search for the miracle cure on the management side, the
belief in a new religion “agility” on the user side. And in between a lot of misun-
derstandings about what agility actually is. In between, failed attempts to lead
people to more self-organization, excessive demands and very often the opposite of
leadership: letting things run, taking no decisions, avoiding risks and acting like
before. Just the words had changed.
But also many small miracles, islands of success, development and growth,
where teams had produced something ingenious and treated each other with re-
spect.
What makes one, what makes the other? It is also the individual and organiza-
tional mindset, but certainly not only. Circumstances play a role, luck, coinci-
dences, market forces, the pandemia.
But also the thinking and action logic of those who deal with luck and misfor-
tune, coincidences and planning: open, ready to question everything, self-
actualizing. Self-actualization requires the ability to perceive in a differentiated
way and not to search for right or wrong, but for the higher idea, the supporting
thought, which gladly arises and is developed in a group. All of this is mindset - but
many people understand it to mean something completely different: for example,
taking undifferentiated positions such as “we no longer need management” or “the
HR department is superfluous”. That is opinion and not mindset.

218 6 Better Places for All of Us
The mindset in my understanding is different. It can grasp positions and take

perspectives, it can also represent something and stand for something, but not for
an either-or. That is unusual. Everywhere, we are conditioned to agree or disagree
with statements and positions - but not to feel the resonance to thoughts and ideas
and then develop them. This is what real transformation of thought can bring. This
is what I meant by agile mindset.
For some time now, mindset has almost become a buzzword. Everyone now
uses the word. And just like agility, everyone understands it differently - one person
understands it as an attitude, the other as a specific set of competencies or values.
In this book, I have tried to define the term more broadly and at the same time more
concretely. Of course it has to do with attitude and competencies, but in the end it
is all together and more. This leaves room for misunderstanding, and I do worry a
little that what I have presented here will either be oversimplified or over-
intellectualized - or overemphasize methodology in search of solutions that don’t
exist. Stepping on your own brakes a bit can help tremendously, even if it some-
times quite resists our human quest for push-button change.
Many people prefer simple and quick solutions. They want to succeed quickly,
learn quickly, preferably NOT update and stick to good old experiential knowledge
or life as it is right now. This is the challenge for those who drive transformation -
to pick up others who do not really want to...
We can only achieve this by focusing on development, for example by allowing
others to contribute ideas, for example the development of thoughts in a team as a
free flow of associations. Thinking together can open up constricting experiential
knowledge, but only if real feeling and free thinking is allowed and there are no
taboos. Teams broaden the sometimes too narrow mindset of individuals, which is
limited to their own experience. But teams are made up of individuals who are able
to go new ways. Heterogeneity and diversity help here, also in relation to the mind-
set in the sense conveyed here.
There are no patent recipes for forcing a “mind change” - and every person,
every team and every company must go its own way. It helps to close your eyes
every now and then, to plug your ears and to listen to yourself. That way, we can all
work to make companies, and perhaps the world, a better place. And in order to
create better workplaces, we need people who can shape them through new ideas
and their actions.
Yours, Svenja Hofert, December 2017, actualized May 2021.
Index
A Bateson, G., 101

Accommodation, 193 Beck, D., 82
Achiever, 50, 51 Beer, S., 199
Action Inquiry, 51 Behavioral preferences, 129
Adaptability, 51 Behaviour, 31, 63
Adulthood, 29 Bergmann, F., 11, 90
Aesthetic needs, 37 Big Five, 47
Agile fails, 103 Binary code, 98
Agile frameworks, 17 Binder, T., 60
Agile Future Check, 8 Blocks of personality, 39
Agile methods, 2 Blue level, 83
Agile software development, 2 Bonding, 117
Agility, 18 Bush, G.W., 14
Alchemist, 83 Business perspective, 117
Ambiguity, 111
Ambiguity tolerance, 105
Analysis sheet, 76 C
Antithesis, 159 Cain, S., 47
Approaches to coaching and consulting, 79 Career development, 108
As a process, 57 Categorical imperative, 15
Assessing ego-development, 57, 58 Change, 27
Assimilation, 193 Change one’s mind, 93
Attitude, 13–19 Change processes, 53
Authority, 56, 76, 77 Changing competences, 104–108
Character, 62
Charismatic, 112
B Clarification of terms, 98
Basic assumption, 3, 16–19 Clinton, B., 14
Basic assumptions of leadership, 112 Cognition, 117

S. Hofert, The Agile Mindset, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34910-3
220 Index
Cognitive needs, 37 Dialectical bivalence, 159

Collective thinking, 6 Dialectical logic, 183–194
Communication, 127 Dialectics, 184, 185
Communication architecture, 148 Die Morgenlandfahrt, 110
Communities of practice, 199 Digitalization, 1–27
Company culture, 96 Digitization, 105
Company size, 96 Diplomat, 50, 51
Complexity, 73 Disruptive, 27
Conflict, 77 Dogma, 59
Construction of reality, 100 Dweck, C., 19
Constructivism, 74, 100, 101
Contemporary leadership, 130
Contradictions, 55 E
Contradictory values, 130 Early “E6s”, 49
Conventional, 32 Effective, 61
Conventional level, 44–46 Effective-mode, 65
Conway’s Law, 148, 149 Ego, 61
Cook-Greuter, S., 38, 40 Ego development theory, 33, 38
Cooperate with others, 93 Ego-mode, 65
Cooperativeness, 105 Emotional intelligence, 105
Corporate culture, 6 Emotional style, 115
Correlation, 124 Empirically proven patterns, 29
Counter-model to capitalism, 11 Enlightenment, 14
Counterproductive, 114 Environment scandals, 44
Cowan, C., 82 Environmental conditions, 104
Critical feedback, 63 Epistemic action, 117
Cultural change, 198, 199 Epistemology, 177, 178
Culture, 170, 172 Equilibrium, 193
CV, 59 Erickson, M.H., 101
Expert, 50
Extraproductive behavior, 114
D Extraversion, 53
Dalai Lama, 51
Davidson, R., 115
Decided decision, 98 F
Degree of maturity, 29 Feedback, 140–144, 181, 182
Deliberately Developmental Organizations Feedback levels, 141
(DDOs), 79 Field of expertise, 67
Depth, 54 Firing neurons, 22
Depth of reflection, 8 First- and second-order change, 7–13
de Shazer, S., 101 Flexible-mode, 65
Design thinking process, 107 Focus of consciousness, 62
Dethloff, C., 115 Forming professional identity, 43
Developmental psychology, 29–86 Four ears model, 23
Developmental theories, 38 Four management directions, 109–132
Development interview, 74–78 Future workplace, 83
Index 221
G J
A Gandhi, 14 Jobs, S., 14
Gen Y, 132
Gestalt therapy, 101
Graves, C.W., 37, 82 K
Green levels, 83 Kahneman, D., 3
Greenleaf, R.K., 110, 112 Kanban, 26
Group-specific behaviors, 102 Kanning, U., 93
Growing company, 96 Kant, I., 15
Kegan, R., 31, 40
Kibéd, V. von, 99
H Kohlberg, L., 32
Hesse, H., 110 Kotter, J.P., 106
Hierarchy, 18, 89, 92 KPI thinking, 69
Higher maturity, 29
Higher principles, 33
Highest good, 16, 35 L
High-performance teams, 93 Laisser-faire, 91
Holacracy, 202 Laloux, F., 122
Humanistic psychology, 36 Language, 39
Human resources development, 68 Lateral leadership, 110
Humble Consulting, 73 Lateral Leadership profile, 129
Hypothesis, 23 Leader, 89
Leadership, 37, 89–132, 204
Leadership culture, 120
I Leadership directions, 109
IBM, 107 Leadership from above, 91
Imperial, 36 Leadership from below, 92
Impulses, 33 Leadership from the side, 92
Impulsive, 36, 65, 66 Leadership in the digital age, 104
Incorperative self, 36 Leadership values in agile times, 90
Increase agility, 30 Leadership values study,
Individualist, 51 120–130
Individuality, 59 Lean, 26
Industrialization, 104 Leaps and bounds, 38
Influence, 113 Learning, 24
Information and transformation, 24, 35 Learning and development, 24
Information flow, 127 Learning organisation, 199
Institutional (self-authoring mind), 36 Limbic level, 168
Interindividual (self-transforming mind), 36 Linkedin, 23
Interpersonal, 36 Locke, J., 5
Interpersonal style, 62 Loevinger, J., 31
Interventions for different stages, 76–83 Logic of thought and action, 19
Introvert, 48 Longitudinal organizational development,
Intuition, 33, 53 52
IQ, 60 Luhmann, N., 74, 98
IQ test, 48 Luther, M., 14
222 Index
M Patriarch, 121
Management principles, 103 People, 57
Manipulation, 113 Performance motivation, 174
March, J.G., 193 Personal style, 64
Maslow, A., 36, 37 Personality psychology, 39
Maturity grid, 151 Philosophical approach, 36
Maturity level, 18 Piaget, J., 24
Megalomania, 113 Piaget, P., 30
Memes, 82 Political sphere, 32
Metacommunication, 97 Positive psychology, 36
Methods, 26 Post-conventional, 32
Mind-change, 135–194 Post-conventionalists, 47
Mindset, 3 Post-conventionality, 73
Mode, 61 Post-conventional level, 46
Motivating factors, 175 Post-conventional thinking, 32
Multiple mindsets, 120 Posture, 14
Pre-conventional, 32
Pre-conventional level, 42, 43
N Prefer cooperative, 124
Narcissism, 42 Principle, 14, 19
Neurobiological, 31 Process knowledge, 108
Neurobiological basis, 165–169 Prospects, 77
New thinking, 89–132 Psyche, 99
New Work, 11–13 Psychoanalysis, 101
No-power-people-with-us, 110 Psychological-systemic view, 92
Northern Europeans, 124 Psychopathy, 42
Pubescent teenager, 30
O
Obama, B., 14, 60 Q
OCEAN, 47 Question of meaning, 35
Oestereich, B., 95
Old thinking, 103
Openness, 48 R
Opportunist, 50 Red level, 83
Optimization-driven company, 96 Reflecting team, 165
Orange, 83 Reflection, 181, 182
Order, 117 Reinventing Organizations, 83
Organizational development, 97 Relativization, 47
Organizational mindsets, 197 Requirements for mindset, 54–56
Organizational psychology, 114 Resilience, 115
Otto GmbH & Co KG, 197 Responsibility, 77, 78
Own standards, 67 Rethinking, 114
Right, 61
Right-mode, 65
P Rigid, 13
Paradoxes, 2, 159–161 Rigid and fixed mindset,
Paternal/maternal personalities, 113 19–21
Index 223
Rooke, D., 31, 49 Systemic thinking, 34, 100

Roth, G., 39 Systems theory, 5, 74, 98
Rule orientation, 60
T
S Talented employee, 43
Sandberg, S., 14 Team, 92
Satir, V., 101 TeamsworksPLUS®, 75
Scharmer, C.O., 74 Teamwork, 59, 105
Schein, E.H., 73 Tetralemma, 162, 164
Schüller, A.M., 131, 132 Theory of cognitive development, 32
Scrum, 26, 31 Theory of Constraints, 199
Scrum Master, 115 Theory U, 74
Second intelligence, 47–50 Thesis, 159
Second tier, 82 Thinking, 53
Self-leadership, 89, 109 Three motives for growth, 37
Self-organization, 60, 202 Three Mountains Experiment, 30, 32
Self-transcendence, 37 Thun, F.S. von, 23
Self-updating, 36, 37 Tools and methods, 80–81
Servant leadership, 110, 112 Top managers, 49
Shame, 24 Torbert, W., 31, 49
Shift in development, 52 Transformation, 25
The Shift towards more agility, 2 Transformational, 113
Shu-Ha-Ri, 115 Triad, 99
Slow thinking, 3 Trump, D., 14
Social adaptation, 43 Trust, 96
SOI, 75 T-Shape, 107, 108
Sotomayor, S., 58 T-Shape model, 107
Spiral, 82 Two dimensions, 30
Spiral dynamics, 37, 82–83
Stages of moral development, 32
STAR interview technique, 59 U
Strategist, 51 Undecided, 99
Structural indication, 77 Underground work, 114
Structuring ability, 116 Updating knowledge,
Subject-object balance, 33 179, 180
Subject-Object Interview, 75
Subject-object theory, 33
Subject-specific system theories, 98 V
Surface, 54 Value clusters, 127
Survey, 127 Value creation, 105
Synthesis, 159 Value formation, 43
System 1, 3 Value-oriented, 211–213
System 2, 3 Values, 15, 19
Systemic coaching, 97 Value system, 82
Systemic foundations, 90 Viable System Model, 199
Systemic theory, 97–101 Victim analysis, 164, 165
224 Index
W We-thinking, 60
Washington University Word fluency, 48
Sentence Completion
Test (WUST),
40, 58 X
Watzlawick, P., 101 Xenophon, 37
We, 61
We-mode, 65
Western Europeans, 124 Z
Western society, 63 Zuckerberg, M., 57

Svenja Hofert - The Agile Mindset - Developing Employees, Shaping The Future of Work-Springer (2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Svenja Hofert - The Agile Mindset - Developing Employees, Shaping The Future of Work-Springer (2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Agile Mindset

ISBN 978-3-658-34909-7 ISBN 978-3-658-34910-3 (eBook)

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022

make myself an ally of agility prophets because I do not believe in promises of

r­ esponsibility to self-organized teams. Learning organizations not only need lead-

Hamburg, Germany Svenja Hofert

2.3.6 Requirements for Mindset from the Perspective of

4.1.5 Determining the Agile Maturity Level���������������������������������149

Fig. 1.1 Elements leading to posture. (Svenja Hofert)�����������������������������������17

Table 1.1 Evaluation Agile Future Check�����������������������������������������������������������9

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 1

1.1 Mindset of Individuals and Organisations

In decision theory and general systems theory, a mindset is a set of assumptions,

Thus, an assortment of assumptions, procedures, and signs held by a person or

matter what it is, whether it is a concrete or abstract concept, absolute or relative.

cc Mindset has something to do with “mind” and with “attitude”

How Thinking Determines Action

Mindset is shaped by its environment. It cannot be seen in isolation. That is why we

Wrong Mindset for the Context

cc If we put all the ways of looking at things together, the mindset is

1.2 Mindset and First- and Second-Order Change

And now transfer everything into Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Evaluation Agile Future Check

cc If you are threatened by change, you need a logic of thinking and

cause it is based on past experience. However, innovations do not

1.2.1 New Work and Mindset

1.2.1.1 Interview with Britta Redmann

What is your understanding of agility?

What kind of mindset does agility need?

What is the problem from your experience?

these structures, many employees have worked in more security-oriented environ-

What opportunities and risks does New Work offer?

1.3 Mindset and Attitude

• have a high level of judgment,

• I’m taking my cue from a group.

1.3.1 Basic Assumptions as the Basis for Everything

Fig. 1.1 Elements leading to posture. (Svenja Hofert)

1.3.2 Basic Assumptions for Agility

• Digitalization demands agility from us.

Table 1.2 Examples of values, basic assumptions and principles

1.4 Agile and Dynamic Versus Rigid and Fixed Mindset

Incremental mindset is known from software development. There it is a step-by-

If the New Mindset Is Not Truly Embedded ..

cc An agile mindset is a growth mindset. This includes the conviction

1.5 The Structure of Thinking

1.5.1 Understanding Is an Illusion

What do we see? How do we organize information into the drawers of our

Fig. 1.2 Information and transformation. (Svenja Hofert)

Mindset in an Agile Context

1.6 Interview with Conny Dethloff

What Role Do Methods Play in This?

1. We think in order to attain the ultimate truth.

Isn’t that Very Difficult for People to Bear?

What Is Really Essential?

People develop according to empirically proven patterns, even in adulthood.

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 29

cc The basic assumption that behaviour shapes thinking is wrong. As long

Organizations often focus on training the behaviour of people. They’re practic-

2.1 Stages of Moral Development

cc Post-conventional thinkers no longer necessarily adhere to prescribed

2.2 The Subject-Object Theory of Robert Kegan

cc Why do you need post-conventional thinkers in your company? Manag-

r esponsibility to self-organized teams. Learning organizations not only need lead-

Hamburg, Germany Svenja Hofert

2.3.6 Requirements for Mindset from the Perspective of

4.1.5 Determining the Agile Maturity Level��149

Fig. 1.1 Elements leading to posture. (Svenja Hofert)��17

Table 1.1 Evaluation Agile Future Check��9

1.1 Mindset of Individuals and Organisations

1.2 Mindset and First- and Second-Order Change

1.2.1 New Work and Mindset

1.2.1.1 Interview with Britta Redmann

1.3 Mindset and Attitude

1.3.1 Basic Assumptions as the Basis for Everything

1.3.2 Basic Assumptions for Agility

1.4 Agile and Dynamic Versus Rigid and Fixed Mindset

1.5 The Structure of Thinking

1.5.1 Understanding Is an Illusion

1.6 Interview with Conny Dethloff

2.1 Stages of Moral Development

2.2 The Subject-Object Theory of Robert Kegan

2.2.1 Self-Updating: Digression on Abraham Maslow

2.3 Stages of Ego Development

2.3.1 The Pre-Conventional Level

2.3.2 The Conventional Level

2.3.3 The Post-Conventional Level

2.3.4 Ego-Development as Second Intelligence

2.3.4.1 William Torbert and David Rooke

2.3.5 Ego-Development and the Challenges

2.3.6 Requirements for Mindset from the Perspective

2.3.7 Requirements for Mindset from the Point of View

2.3.8 Assessing Ego-Development

2.3.9 Are “Later” Developed Ones Better?

2.3.10 My Model of “Mode”

2.3.11 Detailed Description of the Stages

2.3.11.1 Ego-Mode: Being Impulsive

2.3.11.2 We-Mode: Taking Part

2.3.11.4 Effective-Mode: Achieving Targets

2.3.11.5 Flexible-Phase: Questioning and Bringing Together

2.3.11.6 Flexible-Plus-Mode: Shaping and Changing

2.3.12 Development Interview

2.3.13 Interventions for Different Stages of Development

Flexible-plus-phase Sparring, Question the Development – See above

2.4 Spiral Dynamics