Lars Vollmer: Are Germany’s leaders afraid of responsibility?

The new government's coalition agreement is titled "Responsibility for Germany." I was tempted to be amused by this, because it couldn't be more generic. A football team could just as easily make winning games its mission for the new season. Well, what else?

But then I decided to think about the fact that responsibility is a tricky thing. Not just in politics, but also in business.

I already mentioned in my last column that I'm temporarily involved in some consulting projects again. I've noticed how often, when asked about their biggest problem, a managing director or owner answers: "My managers simply don't take on enough responsibility." This is—at least in part—due to the fact that these people either lack courage or vision, or are simply indecisive.

So, personal deficits are identified as the cause. But when we dig deeper, it almost always turns out that the individual's failure to take responsibility isn't the problem. Rather, it's a solution – to a different problem.

This other problem may be very different, but a pattern repeats itself.

Here's an analogy. Admittedly, it's a bit exaggerated and has its limitations, but it beautifully illustrates a largely unknown characteristic of responsibility.

Responsibility is finite. Like a cake.

The analogy goes like this: Imagine the boss brings a cake to his executives in the morning and proudly presents it. Everyone admires it and wants a piece of it.

When collective hesitation prevails in a team instead of personal responsibility, something urgently needs to change. Leaders won't get very far with traditional methods, but with these

The boss cuts the cake into twelve slices, serves himself first, and scoops five slices onto his plate. He slides the remaining seven onto another plate and places it in front of the empty chair next to him. This chair is reserved for all the rules, methods, policies, and guidelines that apply within the company.

And when the boss, with his cheeks full and still chewing, accuses the others at the table of not eating any of the cake, it's almost cynical. Because, in fact, there's none left.

It's the same with responsibility.

As soon as rules apply to everything in an area, responsibility is no longer in the hands of managers: Responsibility is delegated to the rules, because these ultimately dictate what has to be done and what one has to follow.

In extreme cases, the manager doesn't even have to think for themselves. And what's more, often they aren't even supposed to think for themselves. They simply have to go through the process and follow the rules.

This situation presents managers with a dilemma. If they nevertheless assume responsibility and decide differently, they are circumventing a regulation and thus committing a certain form of illegality.

I don't think that under these circumstances, a manager can be blamed for following the rules, do you?

If you now object that not every manager in a company can make decisions as they please, because then everything falls apart, I'm happy to agree with you. Of course, decision-making consistency is needed across a company. However, if you simultaneously demand accountability, you won't achieve this with rules. Because rules are stupid as soon as the environment no longer stands still.

Capitalism has proven itself to be a superior form of society – but far too few people talk about it. Our columnist Markus Väth asks where the business representatives, executives, and politicians are who publicly praise capitalism.

Then a company needs a strategy that guides its actions. And surprisingly often, that's missing.

While every company today has some kind of strategy, many simply limit themselves to statements like "We want to become the global market leader." That's not a strategy, but a triviality.

An action-guiding strategy, on the other hand, is one that says "no" to decisions that would also be plausible for the company. In other words: If no one with any reason would seriously pursue the opposite of the strategy, it is not a strategy. And only the exclusionary nature makes a strategy manageable for managers in everyday life.

Then, out of five realistic decision options, the strategy can eliminate three because the strategy says "no." It maintains decision consistency across the company and can simultaneously assume responsibility: It is free to choose one of the two remaining options.

In the absence of such a guiding strategy, it's likely that managers won't make their decisions in the first place. They'd rather wait and see if there's a signal from somewhere about which of the options might fit well with the decisions of others. Or they'll ask their boss directly, so he can take the decision and thus the responsibility off their hands.

Germany's economy is struggling with declining productivity, slow processes, and a crippling prosperity paradox. Members of the "Top 40 under 40" network are exploring this dilemma and demanding: We need a new operating model

If this happens frequently, it is interpreted as an individual's inability to make decisions and a lack of responsibility. However, this behavior is essentially just an organizational solution to the problem of achieving decision consistency without a strategy.

But back to the cake of responsibility.

I'm really curious to see how the new government intends to divide this pie between itself and the citizens: Will it take the largest piece and later complain about the voters' lack of responsibility? Or will it give a large portion of the pie to the citizens?

As a liberal-minded person, I would prefer the latter. But I don't have much hope.