Leadership as a Framework for Successful Strategy Implementation

Dieses Buch gibt Ihnen eine Antwort auf die Frage: Was ist Organisationales Lernen? Was verhindert und was fördert Organisationales Lernen? Sie werden eingeladen das Phänomen des Organisationalen Lernens aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln zu betrachten. Aus der eines Experten für Unternehmenskultur, aus der eines Mikropolitikers, aus der eines Wissensmanagers und aus der eines Kybernetikers. Wir beginnen mit der Perspektive eines Informations- und Wahrnehmungsexperten und der eines Forschers, der daran glaubt, dass die Anpassungsfähigkeit eines Unternehmens das Fundament für die Zukunftsfähigkeit jeder Organisation ist. Sie finden die Namen großer Praktiker und Theoretiker, die mit ihrer Art das Phänomen "Organisation" zu beschreiben nachhaltig zu einem Verständnis dazu beigetragen haben, was in Organisationen täglich Sinnvolles oder sinnlos Erscheinendes passiert. Im Rahmen einer empirischen Studie wurden Dimensionen des Organisationalen Lernens mit dem betriebsinternen Innovationsmanagement abgeglichen. Das untersuchte Unternehmen hatte sich fest vorgenommen durch die Einführung neuer Prozesse und Tools, die "Time to Market" zu halbieren. Tatsächlich ist aber genau das Gegenteil eingetreten. Der Begriff des Organisationalen Lernens scheint aus der Mode gekommen zu sein. Auf der anderen Seite gibt es kaum einen holistischeren Ansatz, der dabei helfen kann, die Realität in Organisationen zu verstehen und im Sinne des Unternehmenserfolgs zu gestalten.

Textprobe:
Kapitel 3.2, Sensemaking:
It was probably Karl Weick who introduced the term Sensemaking into the discussion about how organizations work. Based on a constructivist perspective, for Weick, sensemaking can be described as the basic idea [ ] that reality is an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs (Weick, 1993).
Two main aspects and their relations to leadership in the phase of strategy implementation will be discussed in the following chapter: how to build a vision and the central role of communication in establishing a general structuring framework for the integration of information regarding strategic activities respectively non-activities.
3.2.1, Building a Vision:
The word vision comes from the Latin videre , which means to see . A vision typically creates a positive picture of a company s future. Following Peter Senge, the delta between the vision (what a company wants) and the present reality (where a company is, compared to where the company wants to go) induces a sort of creative tension (Senge, 2006, p.174). To create the right level of tension, it is important that the vision is not too close to present practices on one side but also not too amorphous on the other side . According to Bodenmüller and Wurm there are three main targets why Vision Statements are typically part of a strategy process:
1. A company s vision is designed to transport uniqueness and therefore should be distinctive .
2. A company s vision is designed to induce a mobilization effect.
3. A company s vision should give orientation to its members regarding the deeper sense and the added value of their daily efforts. (Bodenmüller & Wurm, 2007).
The initial development of a vision on a corporate level is definitely a leadership task. Furthermore it is important to ensure that all strategies on all operative levels are derived respectively are fully compatible with the company`s vision. Senge et al. differentiate 5 levels of creating a vision in relation to the degree of employee participation: Announcing. Selling. Testing. Consulting. Co-creation (Senge et al., 1997, p.364).
As mentioned in the section about New Leadership approaches, Charlotte Roberts comes to the point that co-creatively working on a common shared vision demands a new understanding of leadership regarding the role and treatment of employees. Instead of controlling employees, a leader has to learn to listen to his people, he should be able to motivate them and manage to align enthusiasm without suffocating the energy (Senge et al., 1997, p.353).
Collins and Porras come to the conclusion that a Core Ideology at least consists of two parts:
1. Core Values which can be understood as a handful of guiding principles by which a company navigates.
2. A Core Purpose which can be understood as the mission describing an organization s most fundamental reason for being (Collins & Porras, 2011, p.80).
Companies typically have only a few Core Values, usually between three and five (Collins & Porras, 2011, p.81). Core Values should be very stable. It has to be ensured that they are really core and should be a representative slice of the company s genetic code (Collins & Porras, 2011, ibid.).
Also the Core Purpose ought to be long lasting. An effective purpose reflects people s idealistic motivations for doing the company s work . Companies need an audacious 10-30-year goal to progress toward and envisioned future . Collins and Porras call this BHAGs or Big Hairy, Audacious Goals . In addition to these vision-level goals it is necessary to translate the vision to pictures with a vivid description of what it will be like to achieve these goals (Collins & Porras, 2011, p.ibid.). It is the task of leaders in a company to develop, represent and communicate a company`s Core Ideology, using its cohesive and sensemaking power.
3.2.2, Communication:
Klaus Doppler describes the commun