Why New Work Doesn't Work (II) - The Central Mistake

Now the lively row continues. Thank you for the varied reactions. Contradiction, agreement, arguments, exchange, movement. Super. It's fun!

Where are we standing? In Part 1 it was found that many of the central concepts of New Work are, firstly, empirically zero-based, secondly, they use esoteric clichés, and thirdly they violate the self-propagated principles in many ways.

In part 2 we look at what exactly the central misunderstanding is. On the one hand, this can be named very concretely, and on the other hand the New Work movement is by no means a pioneer on this wrong path.

Leave the popper alone!
Funny, it is the great Karl Popper of all people who got lost in a similar way. To be honest, it hurts a bit to say such a sentence about such a great mind size as Popper at all. And it does not lack a certain irony, since Popper, as the author of the falsification principle, laid the foundation for all empirically working sciences.

The fact is, however, that Popper had to flee to England from the Nazis in 1937 and, under the impact of World War II, the Nazi regime and communism, drafted his great social theory. In the two-volume work "The Open Society and its Enemies" [1] he contrasts the ideal of "open society" with the totalitarian opposite pole of closed society. He criticizes Plato, Hegel and Marx, who believe that their approaches encourage totalitarian thinking.

The open society, however, is presented as a superior democratic, pluralistic, evolutionary system. It is gradually improving and is slowly striving towards ideal society. Sounds really nice. I find the train of thought bewitching, attractive and deeply desirable. Only: this is unrealistic. But more on that later.

Popper's social theory was and still is extremely powerful. The idea of ​​an "open society" has not only passed into the general vocabulary, but has become a maxim for dealing with totalitarian regimes. It is Popper's logic of an evolutionary social development towards the ideal of an open society, which in many respects guided the action for western industrial powers. Here some examples:

China: How do we best deal with the growing, totalitarian China? We integrate the Chinese into the World Trade Organization (2001) and then the country will develop into openness all by itself. Puff cake.

Turkey: How can we accompany authoritarian Turkey on the way to an open society? We are paving the way for accession negotiations with the EU. Well, the outcome is also known. Nothing open society.

Russia: And the idea of ​​leading Russia into more open areas through integration into the G7 round has also turned out to be an illusion.

In general, an increase in authoritarian thinking everywhere on this planet is unfortunately as lamentable as it is incompatible with the ideas of open society. Popper himself writes: "Great philosophers make big mistakes" and that is unfortunately absolutely correct in this case.

The relation to New Work
But wait a minute. So what is the parallel to New Work? Aren't the examples above a few shelves too high? You might think so and support it argumentatively. However, I see it differently.

In no way do I want to equate today's situation with that of 1945. That would be completely wrong on many levels. However, I think an abstract parallel is imperative. And this is how it works: A misconstruction has been discovered and named in the economy. Authoritarian, hierarchical, rigid systems may be somewhat functional in strictly Taylorist working environments. But in an increasingly dynamic economy that depends more and more on the creativity, commitment, health and knowledge of the workforce, the traditional patterns no longer work. Today's companies have to change. To put it in Popper: they are too closed and need to open more. The need for change is also enormous and encompasses all facets of companies: strategy, culture, leadership, the mindset.

Accordingly, I can fully understand why the approaches of Laloux, Holocracy and Spiral Dynamics trigger such great fascination, enthusiasm and hope. They promise a solution for the simply greatest development task of today's companies in a relatively simple, clear and attractive way. In addition, the direction is clearly the right one. Companies have to “open up” in order to be able to take better account of changing realities.

But, and this is also part of the truth: opening up companies creates problems. If I reduce hierarchy, there is a lack of coordination. If I allow heterogeneity, conflicts arise. If I question things, it leads to more disorientation. Flexibility and instability, education and dissatisfaction, equal opportunities and leveling, individuality and selfishness, ability to learn and provision.

Conversely, it is by no means the case that closed systems are only bad. They may appear rigid and rigid, but they are also stable. Synchronization enables opening in one movement. Preservation facilitates harmony. Discrimination and hierarchy, coercion and reliability, narrowing and external security, dogmatics and uniqueness, ideology and purpose.

In short: elements alone, whether opening or closing, combine not only positive effects, but also negative ones. So if you want to change things, then both must be considered and taken into account together. You can see that wonderfully in the example of home office. Many of us have just gained experience with this. In principle, the home office is a flexible, opening measure. This works particularly well when flanking clever rules, processes and structures are introduced [2]. So parallel closing.

The crucial mistake in thinking
In this respect, and now we come to the crucial mistake that Popper is subject to as well as Laloux or Spiral Dynamics: The open company does not arise by itself, it is not natural, the superior organizational form and opening-related activities are not a panacea.

Rather, opening elements in an organization are always accompanied by negative effects, just as corresponding disadvantages are associated with closed elements. If you want to open a company, whether in strategy, culture, leadership or mindset, then just focusing on opening measures is the wrong impulse. The thrust of thinking that a change process must be thought primarily from the opening up is doomed to fail. Of course, the opening elements are more obvious and easier to plan. It is more difficult to anticipate the problems of opening and to buffer them through the clever integration of closing measures - and that is exactly what is often not even considered or insufficiently planned.

By the way, these thoughts don't all grow on my crap. Not that it gives the wrong impression. Ralf Dahrendorf repeatedly questioned Popper's social theory very benevolently, but also critically in the above sense, e.g. [3], [4]. Anthony Giddens [5] and Pierre Bourdieu [6] pointed to dualities similar to those of nature even earlier. The concrete transfer of Popper's ideas to business questions in Germany was particularly driven by Diether Gebert, starting with a groundbreaking essay [7], and refining it further in various collaborations, e.g. [8], [9], [10]. In this respect: Of course this should not be a lecture here, but we hardly talk about any secret knowledge in all of this.

However, none of this occurs in the world of Laloux or Spiral Dynamics. In this respect: Do the grand monsieurs of New Work formulate ideas and concepts that go in the right direction? Yes sir! Are the ideas and concepts in the formulated meaningful? No sir!

In principle it is with Spiral Dynamics and co. like with fast food. It looks great, is cheap, and works against fast hunger. But it also causes flatulence, makes you fat and the feeling of hunger quickly returns. Since, to stay in the picture, the German economy is just about to starve, a drive-in is extremely attractive. In the medium and long term, there is no alternative to sensible nutrition. Of course, fast food still goes off every now and then - only in reasonable amounts. Well, while writing these lines, I can't help but notice a certain bigotry given my own eating habits. But good. You understand the picture and that counts ;-)

In part 3 of the series, after all the theoretical ramblings, we will look at extensive concrete empirical findings on this topic. Which opening processes make sense in the context of new work? How do you plan parallel closure measures? Where do you get a feeling for the right impulses? Stay tuned!

After the totally heterogeneous, always knowledgeable and critical feedback so far, I am very excited about the further exchange. So: what do you think of it? I like to shoot!