Well through time.

The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting.

Summary of content

In this episode of the podcast „Gut durch die Zeit“ we delve into the complex and often misunderstood topic of power. With the help of Constanze Buchheim, leadership expert and founder of i-Potentials, it's not just about the definition of power, but also the essential role it plays in leadership, mediation and organisational culture. plays. Our discussion opens up new perspectives on power as a dynamic component of relationships that we should actively shape rather than repress.

Constanze describes her career and the development of her company, which was founded in 2009 to fill leading positions in the transformation landscape. She sheds light on how the handling of power varies in start-ups and established companies and what challenges arise from this. It becomes clear that power in leadership is inextricably linked to responsibility and that we live in a time in which leaders must learn to embrace their power in order to actively shape change.

A central element of our discussions is the Reflection on the role we play in organisations and in conflict management. We discuss how important it is, as a manager or mediator, be able to differentiate between structural and emotional power and understand how they work in interactions. Constanze emphasises that as a manager, it is necessary to promote a culture of open communication and cooperation in which people feel comfortable expressing their opinions and dealing with conflicts constructively.

The interview also sheds light on the Expectations of modern management cultureresulting from changing working conditions. This is about not only about responding to individual demands, but also about the responsibility of managers to create an environment in which all members of the organisation feel part of the whole and are willing to take responsibility. The challenge lies in breaking out of the traditional hierarchical structure and recognising that leadership is not just a question of power, but also of empathy and understanding.

Finally, we emphasise that real change takes time. It is a process of shared learning and development in which all participants are required to meet as equals in order to work together successfully in a complex environment. Constanze encourages managers and mediators to work tirelessly on their skills and to develop an attitude of openness and reflection in order to promote a positive organisational culture.

This episode invites all listeners to reflect on their own role in the organisation and to take courage for change.

Contents

Transcription of the conversation

[0:00] Yes, and to reach this maturity and this willingness to co-operate, of which you have German, that is my responsibility. Nobody else can take responsibility for that. And not everyone fully accepts this responsibility yet. Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit, the podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. A podcast from INKOVEMA. I'm Sascha Weigel and I'd like to welcome you to a new episode. Today it's about power. About power, may it be with us, but also about the dangers that power brings with it. And I have invited an expert who fortunately not only ascribes power to herself, but who is also ascribed power. And she's quite happy about that. Welcome to the podcast, Constanze Buchheim. Hello, thank you very much for the invitation.

[0:53] Constanze, announcing someone like that is fun. And there aren't many people I would allow myself to do that so freely, because power is also an issue like conflict. You have them, everyone knows that, but you don't admit it to yourself. You want to hold it back a bit. Fortunately, it's different with you.

[1:14] And why that is, I would first like to find out from you what makes you tick, how you got there and how that came about. And then we'll take a closer look at the topic of power and conflict. Constanze, who are you? Constanze Buchheim, I'm the founder and Managing Partner of iPotentials, which was founded in 2009. We occupy a leading position in the German-speaking transformation and innovation landscape. I have been working very, very intensively on the topic of leadership, including leadership of the future, for 20 years now. Yes, it's really important in the context of transformation. I am, how should I put it, a child of the start-up scene. I started at the startup in Leipzig and realised that basically nobody could help us back then. Then I said, I'll just do it myself now.

[2:12] Could help to win people over for it or help with what? Exactly, exactly, exactly. So filling positions, really filling management positions in the company. We would have liked to hand this over to headhunters, simply because of time pressure. But at the time, hardly anyone understood us. Neither did they understand the digital functions, nor the special dynamics, structural dynamics and resource limitations in such a fast-growing start-up, nor the special culture of personal responsibility and organisation that is necessary in such a start-up. And that's how the idea came about, because we said, hey, these are start-ups today, but the entire economy needs to digitalise. This means that demand will increase enormously.

[2:58] I'll just do it now, yes. And that's exactly how it turned out. In other words, we started filling positions for the start-up scene in 2009. And as early as 2013, 2014, we really started to fill management positions in medium-sized companies, family businesses and even DAX companies, which ultimately said that we really needed a new type of manager. This gave me the opportunity to work with many managers from very different phases of the company. I always found that incredibly exciting, because not all leadership is the same. However, most people lump it all together. Leadership in a start-up does not automatically mean leadership of the future.

[3:42] Which is also quickly equated. And that's where I tried, which interested me a lot, to find out what makes it so? And I also realised, okay, leadership and power are inextricably linked, whether we want them to be or not. So it's also important that when I take on a leadership role, I also assume a certain amount of power. And I've noticed through conversations that people reject the term, even though the fact is that yes, you simply have a certain amount of creative power the moment you take on a leadership role in an organisation. And this rejection of the concept of power really has something to do with the way the term is coined, because power is very often associated with oppression, with manipulation, in other words with very negative behaviour and relationship constellations. And I've always said that it's time for us to reinterpret this term. Because if we want transformation, if we want change and if we want to be part of this change and shape it, then it is important that we embrace power, because we need power to change. I also realised that women in particular have a massive connotation and a lot of beliefs in this context. That's how I started to become stronger and stronger, how should I put it?

[5:11] To accept the topic and also to accept it publicly. Exactly, accepting the topic. And it has also met with a huge amount of interest because so few people really want to talk about the topic or talk about it openly. But the interest is immense. And then I thought, well, if I'm now promoting the idea of people in leadership taking on responsibility and therefore power, then it's very important that when I'm asked whether I have and want to have mass, I clearly say yes, because I want to shape the future. That's how it came about.

[5:49] Let me ask you four more questions that came to my mind. You came into contact with the topic, so to speak, especially in your professional life. It wasn't the case that the topic of power had already played a particularly large or central role for you beforehand and then you somehow chose your profession accordingly, so to speak, but in this interface of people for an organisational gain, i.e. Leipzig's digital economy and then a powerful position, the topic came onto your desk, so to speak. And then you said, okay, I have positions to fill here, that has something to do with power and it has different connotations. So you said that the traditional understanding is rejected and is also classically defined in this way. Power as something, I can do something against the will of others, i.e. something they wouldn't want to do without me, but I have the power to influence behaviour against the will of those involved.

[6:49] No, the definitions differ, but that's perhaps a bit too theoretical. It's not always so much about resistance, but per se, to put it very briefly, it's about the possibility of actually asserting one's own interests or certain interests and putting them into practice. And the moment I immediately go in that direction, even against the will of others, I immediately get this, oh, someone is putting on an ego show against the will of others. That doesn't have to be the case. And you don't want to do that. The ulterior motive or the concept is against the will, so to speak, according to Max Weber. And nobody wants that. And this idea of leadership nowadays is that I do something so that others want it too. I lead them. And then power becomes somehow invisible, so to speak. That was kind of the basic idea. And I understood you to mean that even if you lead in such a way that others come along voluntarily, that is power. And to recognise that this is also a form of power.

[7:56] Yes, but not only. So there are actually different sources of power. There is power that is assigned on the basis of structures. There is power that is allocated on the basis of resources. So if I know more, if I have more access to capital and so on and so forth, a certain power arises. And there is also a certain emotional power. And the emotional power is basically also the one that is connoted, ultimately quite massively. That is also, how should I put it, the least tangible part.

[8:32] And I always say that power is not a fixed quality, but an element in relationships. And this element is dynamic. In other words, power can shift back and forth in relationships. And it doesn't always just come from one person exercising power, it can also come from the other person who feels inferior, for example because of their own self-esteem issues. And in this respect, it is also a complex issue. Where I came from was actually structural power. In other words, I talked to CEOs, especially from start-up companies, who really do have a certain responsibility, a certain decision-making power, ascribed to them by the organisational system as CEOs, but who have not accepted this decision-making power at all because it supposedly runs counter to the humanitarian values that are now fashionable. Then you say, yes, I don't want to decide that. Let my people decide. Exactly, let my people decide.

[9:37] And where I then kept saying, I understand the value behind it and the value is basically absolutely understandable. but at the same time the organisation expects a certain design from you, a certain decision. And to differentiate that and come to a logic.

[9:57] And that's where I see the redefinition of the concept of power. In my opinion, we need to arrive at a logic where we say that there are role differences in organisations and these role differences are inherent to the organisation and I can't argue them away, not even with a modern concept of relationships at eye level. What we can change, however, is that we meet on an equal footing outside of these roles on a human level and do not become inferior or superior in any way. That is the change, that there is a real separation between structural and relational power. It sounds to me that in start-ups, where these roles and hierarchical orders are not yet so present or not yet so visible in the structures, the classic understanding of organised organisation is brought in to a certain extent. And that this was obviously where you were heading when you started with start-ups. Exactly, yes. And in fact, these are really illusions, because nowhere is power more concentrated than in a start-up situation.

[11:15] But very few people want to admit that, because de facto the founders or entrepreneurs really do have all the power in the system, but they distribute it because they have to, because of course we can't do everything equally.

[11:29] And trust and power, i.e. everything that happens at the relationship level, are quickly lumped together and people don't realise that the founders actually hold all the power. So the more late-stage an organisation really is, the more power is distributed. Interestingly enough, it doesn't usually feel like that, because in certain phases, how should I put it, certain power players come to the top because certain characteristics are attributed to them. And that's where this old connotation of power comes in. And because people who correspond to this old connotation are in these positions, people think that there is a concentration of power. In fact, it's not like that at all, but we are much more likely to attribute it to people. And in very modern organisations, we really do have democratisation in that sense. In other words, at best we really do have distributed power, distributed decisions that are really allocated in role contexts and all people meet on an equal footing. You asked, is that my first point of reference for power? So power has always motivated me? I wanted to say that briefly. It's actually not the case that I was consciously fascinated by power per se. I've always been fascinated by leadership because I've always been fascinated by the topic of accepting responsibility and the opportunity to shape things. However, I have remained interested in this topic for a long, long, long time.

[12:56] I interpreted leadership per se and it was only in my later self-reflections, i.e. really from the age of 35, 36, that I really got to grips with my issues in terms of self-reflection, that I realised how much the urge to shape things is connected to a sense of power, the need for power, etc., and then I found parallels in my past, where I often experienced situations of powerlessness. And then I also found parallels in my past, where I often experienced situations of powerlessness.

[13:29] And then I realised, yes, the child in me has a certain tendency to say, no, I don't really want to feel this powerlessness. I want us to be in design. But I don't have to equate this shaping with the oppression of others, we have a new possibility. And that's what motivated me. It wasn't always like this, but it was always there somehow. Yes, the terms leadership and design are all very powerful terms and also contain power. So it's fascinating, but also repulsive, because you don't want to be ascribed to yourself. And that, I think, is the fear that people are prepared to suppress or push others out of the way in favour of their own path. And you simply don't want that. And the term power is simply so loaded that it is equated with a willingness to suppress. And I say that doesn't have to be the case.

[14:27] And we can redefine this term, redefine it, because in the end it's about the attitude in which we meet. As long as we meet in an attitude of eye level on the human dimension and remain in this attitude, we can go into the use of power and also into shaping without really hurting the human perspective. So I don't think you can build a better bridge to mediators, who ascribe to themselves, so to speak, the ability and desire to mediate in conflicts and to be called upon to do so, and who always carry the concept of attitude very clearly in front of them and internalise it, saying that this is the crucial point. And a similar phenomenon, and that's why I'm talking about them and then I'm talking about the conflicts, so to speak, is that they also have an ambivalent relationship to power and their power. On the one hand, if they want to take on the task, they claim sovereignty over the process, i.e. to say when, how and what is discussed thematically.

[15:32] Coordinating conversations, so to speak, taking the floor from one person and giving it to another. So that's a very powerful position. And on the other hand, at the same time they endeavour to be neutral in the matter and not actually exist or influence it at all, so they don't decide the conflict like a classic expert advisor, but want to support the parties involved in their development. You are probably not unfamiliar with conflicts and the mediation activities of managers, as you have a very specialised view of them. And we can also include the manager as a conflict manager, even if they have a different responsibility for the objective decision.

[16:22] What experiences have you had with these ambivalent positions, I'll call them theses, of third parties who on the one hand claim process sovereignty, process power, i.e. also leading discussions, and on the other hand say that I have nothing to do with it, I don't want to decide anything. But I simply ask, can that work? What experiences have you had?

[16:49] From my point of view, it can work with a very conscious reflection, here again, of the role that I take on. And you've basically already mentioned that. I have power over the process, I have process sovereignty, but I don't have subject sovereignty. In this respect, I think this is something that, at best, is also addressed in training programmes, where the focus is also directed. So what can also help is to look at definitions of power. If we now say that power is also about asserting interests, then it can be helpful to say that as a mediator I should actually only have one interest. And this one interest should be to maintain fairness or neutrality. As long as I remain in this interest, nothing can happen. And then I can also assume full procedural sovereignty, full power. But as soon as I step into someone else's interests, it becomes more dangerous, because then I can abuse power, I can steer and navigate in a certain direction. And that's basically where the dangerous part comes in. Why is that?

[18:01] Because then I'm no longer in a conscious, transparent process at eye level. That's a very important point, to always realise what my interest is and when do I switch to another interest. To reflect this on a theoretical level would be a second component and I definitely see differences in the participants' ability to reflect. That also means entering into a certain multi-perspectivity, looking at yourself from the outside while you are active and saying what is actually happening here. And there are big, big differences, both on the part of the managers and the external mediators. And that is always something that I assess, something that we also evaluate on a massive scale for leadership roles. How capable is someone of reflection and awareness in this sense? Yes, so I also support this parallel, that this has also increased, I would almost say, compared to the past, this need to reflect, but especially to reflect on this process. So what is happening here? Where am I part of it right now? And I believe that managers have to reflect on the process in a very similar way to mediators, even if they are external, for their task, which they want to carry out responsibly. For the manager, and that would be a bit of a question.

[19:29] Is that true from your perspective, especially in modern organisations, that they don't want to interfere with the people responsible for certain tasks, they usually don't even know what they're doing. But they have to mediate a conflict situation or a dispute between two such managers as a leader. And then it often comes to this borderline situation where they have to use their own responsibility and still have to make a decision on the matter because the two are not getting anywhere on the matter. And that there is of course a great responsibility not to do this too early, not to make life easy for yourself and say, we're going to do it like this straight away. But it's no longer possible to distinguish between process sovereignty and technical sovereignty. You often have these conversations or communications with scrum masters, agile coaches, who are also responsible for the process, or at least describe it as their responsibility, but with increasing conflict intensity they can't avoid taking a position on the matter. Is that true in your experience, that it is no longer so theoretically separable?

[20:56] So it matches my observation. But I don't think it's necessary. What I've observed is that people are too quick to get involved in conflict resolution out of fear of this tension. And in my view, this is completely counterproductive in terms of leadership development in the direction we need to take. Why is that? I briefly outlined earlier that leadership is increasingly moving in the direction of personal responsibility, which really means empowering people to take responsibility. And that also means that individual people in the organisation must be empowered to clarify issues among themselves and not to create them via the managers. This has often been done in the past to avoid conflict. So I have a problem with another person in the organisation. What do I do because I don't feel like having this argument? I go to the manager and tell them that it's not working. That's how it used to be done, but it leads to the manager being put in a parental role in a certain way, I'm going to draw a parallel with transactional analysis. The manager goes to employees and says, I've heard the following, what's going on?

[22:19] It's a bit like the teacher. If the second person isn't in the office an hour later.

[22:24] Exactly, exactly. The teacher complained and wrote her reprimand in the homework book. We should sort that out now. And that's exactly the attitude we want to get out of, into an empowering attitude. And to do that, we first have to learn, so everyone in the organisation has to learn to give each other feedback within the framework of non-violent communication and to see that nothing happens. That such information doesn't have to be taken personally, but that it can remain in the centre, our relationship, that people speak with the role and not with the person. Of course, that has to be practised first. And it also needs to be practised. And the manager is responsible for helping to ensure that it is practised. And going in there, the manager can intervene as a mediator in the sense of saying, hey man, here, I'm observing the following and so on and so forth. And not by default, as I said, far too little conflict is tolerated because we all still believe that a strong "we" is defined by harmony. And in fact, from my point of view, a strong 'we' is defined by a strong 'I'. In other words, by being able to analyse with a very healthy self-esteem what is in me, what is in you and how can we make something of it.

[23:47] In other words, the manager has the power and the influence, so to speak, two people who get to the point where we don't have to talk to each other.

[23:58] I'm doing my own stuff in the organisation now, talking and saying, you sit down now. If necessary with me and we'll sort it out. You clarify the matter and I'll clarify with you that you can't avoid it if you go into an announcement communication like this. That's what the manager has and that's what distinguishes them from a mediator. Ultimately, the mediator can only hope that the parties involved want it enough and are willing to put up with it. Or their manager, if it is in the organisation, says that you are now going into mediation. And then there's no argument. But that would be an imposition, so to speak, that managers and mediators would make on conflict parties who are in the habit of saying I won't talk to them again. At least that has also been my experience as a conflict partner, that conflicts, when they get to you, lead to me not talking to them any more. I don't do that to myself, I don't need to. With all the personality development today, there's also a trait of, I'm not going to do that to myself anymore. You can say that in all sorts of different ways, but the effect is always the same. In the end, they don't talk together.

[25:09] And that's something that, as you rightly said, I think managers are responsible for. Because managers are responsible for maintaining the culture of an organisation. And culture is the way in which we interact and it's definitely not defined in such a way, one hundred per cent not defined in such a way that we say that if we have a conflict, we won't talk to each other anymore, but it's about maintaining a willingness to cooperate. Managers are definitely responsible for this, because if there is no longer a willingness to cooperate, then it doesn't make sense for the organisation. And that is why, in my opinion, they also have the right to intervene at this point. They even have a duty to intervene, because if it can be observed that a manager is tolerating this behaviour, i.e. that people are not engaging in dialogue with each other.

[26:03] Then it gradually becomes established as a lived culture. And then, little by little, an organisation starts to fail to cooperate. So it's pure game theory in that sense. So yes, that's the big difference. And here, too, it is very important for managers to feel their strength, the power of their role. Because of course everyone is free to say, I'm no longer talking to this person. But then we as managers can say, hey, it's your right to decide for yourself that if a conflict arises, you won't speak to anyone else. But …

[26:40] Not in our organisation. And if you make that decision for yourself, then unfortunately that means you can't work in this organisation. So that means, I mean, of course, you're not that quick. Yes, and that's how quickly you draw conclusions. But as managers, we also have to be consistent and say, sorry, organisation means cooperation. And if you're not prepared to get involved in this collaboration, then you're a single player, and single players don't work. That's really good to hear, because that also relates to my experience of mediations initiated in or by organisations. It has a claim that didn't exist in organisations in the past and that wasn't so unproblematic in mediation either. Voluntariness is defined very individually. It's only possible if people want to do it voluntarily. But in organisation.

[27:37] And I think that's really nice to hear, in terms of clarity, that today it's more of a collaboration that isn't organised according to the division of labour in such a way that you can replace each individual as you like, like an assembly line. And the organisation doesn't suffer as a result, but you can no longer simply say, I just want to do my job here, but the job is inextricably linked to the need to deal with other people that I haven't chosen. Yes, I think that makes another aspect clear, one that is not made so clear to us: when I sign an employment contract, it's not just a matter between my employer and me, but I also allow him not only to put people in front of me, but also to sign next to me.

[28:26] Putting team members around me who I have no direct influence over. And where I have to assume that I won't like them all.

[28:37] Yes, so yes, or rather, when I sign an employment contract, I take on a role when I sign this employment contract. And a role is not an island in an organisation, it interacts with other roles. And as an organisation, I am entitled to expect the adult who signs an employment contract to take on this role with all its obligations. And if the maturity, the personal maturity is not there and therefore the willingness to make this interaction possible is missing, then this person, sorry to say it, is not in a position to fulfil the role. And that also has to be assessed, in addition to a certain level of expertise.

[29:25] And I always say, and not many people in Germany dare to say this, that a strong culture also includes the willingness to separate from one another. And I don't mean that one-sidedly, but really on both sides, if you sense that it's just not right. And here again, to be willing to enter into dialogue as a person who refuses to do so. There is no expectation that this person will give up or that the person in this conflict, I mean, who am I telling, but that they will completely surrender, but we expect nothing more than a willingness to talk. In a private context, it's a bit clearer. Yes, a willingness to talk, but we also expect a willingness to reach an agreement.

[30:10] I think that's a bit more demanding for the individuals. I can not only understand this perspective, I also find it appropriate and I also find it important for organisations, but we cannot avoid maintaining this tension, which we used to have in a different understanding, between the individual person and the organisation, who also wants to develop their personality at work, so to speak. They want to enjoy themselves, they want to realise themselves and they come into contact with tasks and people where they see themselves limited and where they see themselves restricted and conflicts arise and then there is also a need for agreement. So the organisation or mediation in an organisation as an instrument also requires a willingness to reach agreement between the lines. I think that's completely okay, but I think it's important to know and ultimately this is also a tough argument. Who is prepared to lead the negotiations?

[31:16] Yes, and that's no different in a private context or, let's say, in a parenting context. Because if you're in mediation in a private context, in a relationship, then it's the case that people have to decide voluntarily to enter into this process. If they don't, and that's what we underestimate, then it's basically already a signal, namely the signal, no, I'm not prepared to work on this relationship. Either you adapt to me or there is no relationship. And that's already a message. Then you've decided against the relationship. And basically, you've decided against working on this relationship because you don't want to leave your own perspective, your own interests. And it's usually already a big step if you simply put both interests side by side and say, what is my interest and what is your interest? And I listen first. And if that's not the case, then all I'm saying is that I don't really want to work in the relationship. I don't think it's that different in the organisational context. And now we come back to the point of the manager's power. The manager has the major task of leading a "we" construct, i.e. really leading the larger whole in a certain direction and not just enforcing an individual interest. So we've already reached that point anyway.

[32:41] Exactly, that's where the tension is. And taking responsibility for it and being consistent. And this consequence can also be the one we have just discussed. And not to be afraid of this and to accept this responsibility, to accept this power, to say that it is now important to be consistent. Because it is in the interests of the organisation as a whole and not just in the interests of these two not to look.

[33:07] The manager is responsible for that and then to say, hey, here's what's in the interests of the organisation now, that's what it's all about. Yes, if I focus on that, so to speak, it boils down to the fact that today, you can go into the organisation and you no longer have to be like that, you don't hand in your age of majority at the entrance gate and then the other person can do what they want and suppress me, so to speak. That is no longer the case, but with the employment contract I declare my willingness to carry out tough negotiation processes in the respective situation. And as a manager, I also have to be prepared to negotiate and communicate more these days and to put things on the table in a more demanding way. I can no longer expect them to simply do what I say, as I used to. But that means, and I think this is the paradoxical problem, that things are slower, that decisions are simply made more slowly in the hope that they will be better, but negotiation processes take time.

[34:15] Yes and no. When it comes to speed, it's always because that's naturally a high value and we want to be quick and then we also hope. But one consequence, and mediation also stands for this, is that it takes time. That is a strong deceleration. Let me put it this way, we all wanted to be treated like adults in our professional lives.

[34:38] Good starting point, yes. So what's happening right now, not yet everywhere, but what really can't be dismissed as a social trend is that individuals are taking on more responsibility. That's what we've always wanted. But what we don't yet see at the individual level is that the individual fully understands what full acceptance of responsibility means. That means seeing my own contribution and taking responsibility for this contribution and not saying, he did this and that's why I feel this way, it's your fault that I feel this way, but you did the following and I am responsible for what happens to me. These are issues that we first have to learn as individuals, as a society, in these learning processes, to say what that actually means.

[35:30] Taking full responsibility for myself? What does it mean to take full responsibility for my emotions? What does maturity mean? And getting into that maturity and getting into that willingness to co-operate that you were talking about earlier. That is my responsibility. Nobody else can take responsibility for that. And not everyone fully accepts this responsibility yet. And that's why these negotiation processes you're talking about are still relatively long in many organisations at the moment, because we're not yet at this point of willingness to take responsibility. And while we have this negotiation process, we are still teaching what full responsibility is, then we have resistance to full responsibility and so on and so forth. It takes so long. But if we really want to take social responsibility now.

[36:18] Maybe 15, 20 years down the line. I know it's a long time. I believe that we'll really be better socially by then and then it will no longer be a debate for us at all to moderate out certain things. And the methods will have become part of the organisations. It won't be possible without it and it will become the norm and we will also become fast at it again. In other words, we're just a bit slower at the moment because we're learning. Okay, yes. I spoke to the sociologist Ulrich Bröckling here some time ago and we were working on a similar topic or coming from a similar approach. I would say that we've been trying to develop this autonomous self for 30 or 40 years. And I don't know, maybe it will take the 15 years you're talking about for it to happen faster. I wouldn't bet on it, let's put it that way, that it will become faster. But maybe we've also learnt other things that might not even be on this path. He formulated this in detail in his publications, this invocation of an ego that is not yet there. So we expect, so to speak, to take responsibility and to become and at the same time declare that we are not there yet. And the paradox is that an expectation is placed on the individual that they are starting out in their immaturity.

[37:39] Hold on. But well, maybe we'll get out of this paradox in 15 years. Yes, but that's why the role of managers is so relevant. And that's why it's so relevant that managers don't take on the role of parent. Because as soon as they take on the role of parent, they basically prevent exactly the kind of maturation that you just mentioned. It is very important that we all meet in our adult selves. If the management can expect, dear employee, that when you're an adult, you'll be faster and you're not fast enough now, then you're not an adult yet and there's no getting round it. So I think that's more of a debate about what guidelines we should follow. I mean, that goes hand in hand with modern leadership, that we are basically changing paradigms from a pure efficiency logic to a results logic. And that in 15 years we will ultimately learn to evaluate processes differently. That means no longer evaluating the speed of a process, but really looking at what the higher result brings. That I instruct and everyone with low motivation, because they are really in this inferior position all the time, are dissatisfied, or that I invest in this process, which may still take a tick more time, yes, but invest it because a significantly higher result comes out afterwards, because we are in cooperation, even in collaboration.

[39:05] And I always say that this situation is described for me in the equation 1 and 1 is 3. This 3 is what we're aiming for. And then I'm also prepared for 1 and 1 to invest a bit of time in order to really get into a situation where they can create the 3 together. So something new, not just the sum of the parts, is that what you mean? Exactly, exactly.

[39:30] Constanze, we've really picked up speed. Where did the topic of power take us? To leadership, to mediation, to conflicts? It's still difficult for me to summarise because we've touched on so many points. Perhaps from the side, what else is there to say about power that we may have overlooked in terms of leadership and conflict in organisations? Yes, in my opinion, the link between all the topics that we have now touched on is the conscious reflection of the role that I am in. To really be able to separate this role and the interests that I represent with this role from my personal interests. And that's where the big development task lies and that applies to the role of the mediator, that applies to the role of the manager and then to understand it very precisely.

[40:29] You really need to have recourse to the structural power that is given to me in my role and where do I not need it, where can I really give space to mature, to become aware that this is our mission, this is our common mission in the organisations, but also in the private environment. And that is also the reason why I am so committed to the topic of mature leadership, where I say that the path to mature leadership and then also mediation as a very important tool in an organisation is self-development. And self-development is not something that we can prescribe, which brings us back to this point. And it certainly cannot be standardised. And we have to relearn as an organisation. That also means when we say, hey, you're a manager now, here's your standard programme. So yes, you can train many methods. In my opinion, mediation is also a method that should be trained. But under no circumstances should we underestimate the extent of necessary self-development, which is very relevant. and it's exactly as you said, that's where responsibility starts. Where I also say that if I have a manager or if I have someone who says to me that I want to be a manager, but I'm not prepared to reflect on myself at any point, then I have to say with exactly the same consequence, I'm sorry, then you can't be a manager.

[41:56] In other words, consistency in awareness and willingness to get into yourself in the first place. That's the connect for me. It's becoming clear to me once again what the new, new organisation that you have in mind, so to speak, or modern organisation, that it's quite a prerequisite not only to learn to fill such a role, but also to dare to take the step into the role. So let's take the leadership role. That has consequences. And it's no longer the case that you end up in a position where you're rejected by your employees because you're somehow always just shouting or having to make announcements, but because the organisation expects a lot of self-reflection, self-development and self-awareness. What is very important is that it is not quasi.

[42:52] Personal decisions of those who lead an organisation. The complexity of the environment in which we all operate, each and every one of us, requires this type of leadership. Because only leadership that is able to really take apart what is happening here, what is happening in the role, what is happening to me as a person, or what does a quick, clean decision look like in this respect? We all need to be trained to be quick, because the environment demands it of us. In this respect, yes, our environment demands a lot from us. And what we can do as managers is to ensure that those who want to do it do it, that they become visible and that they take others with them and are a good role model. That's what it's all about. And that also applies to politics, and we all have a part to play in ensuring that we don't elevate those in positions of power.

[44:06] Who don't have precisely these reflections, but that we consciously use our power as individuals in a society to really focus on a different kind of leadership, a different kind of role model. I think that's another important point, that this is not an end in itself for the organisation, but that it is a consequence of environmental change. If we don't come out of school and say, now we've done it with learning, we can move on.

[44:37] life and work, but that it's an ongoing learning process that has completely different qualities than what you learnt at school. That's how it is. So when I talk about this, also in the context of mature leadership, I always refer to the book by Martin Permantier, Haltung entscheidet. It's a really great book that shows these different attitudes. It also shows the vertical development that this requires. So it's no longer so much about climbing the career ladder, but about really moving forward in terms of self-development. I just spoke to him on the phone and he said, "So yes, people haven't yet understood that feeling is needed for the next level of performance. We get better with feeling. In other words, the moment we react to it, in other words react to our intuition, we can perceive much better what comes from me and what comes from the organisation. And the fact that this is what generates the ability to become professional in complex situations is so contradictory in our minds. That is, as you say, the paradox in your head. But that's the way. We get better with feeling. And that's also where we get a bit stuck, because there's still this connotation everywhere that, yes, feelings have no place in business. The opposite is the case.

[45:57] That sounds like the next podcast conversation to me. I'd love to. And I'm looking forward to it, because that opens up a whole new can of worms. We'll definitely include the book in the show notes so that everyone can read it again and hopefully we'll come back to it. Constanze, thank you very much for the highly interesting, informative and I thought incredibly fast conversation. We covered so many topics. So negotiation processes can also pick up speed. Thank you very much for that. You're very welcome, it was great fun. Have a good time and see you soon. Until then. Thank you very much for being part of the podcast Gut durch die Zeit, the podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. If you enjoyed the episode and the content in general, please subscribe to this podcast and leave feedback and a star rating on Apple Podcast or Google Business. This will also help people who are not yet familiar with the podcast to find it and then listen to it. See you next time. Get through this time well. I am Sascha Waage, your host from INKOVEMA, the Institute for Conflict and Negotiation Management in Leipzig and partner for professional mediation and coaching training.