When individuals feel psychologically safe, they are willing to take on more risk,
Meaning not Mechanics — A human approach to Organizational Transformation
philip horváth

People who feel confident take risks while those who only feel safe try to maintain that seemingly safe status quo, because unlike confident people they do not believe in their ability to master changes or the world after a change!

Change however is not only constant and inevitable, it is also the biggest, constant illusion we live with. Because things do not change. Only our perception of things does change (adjectives in order to stay with your example).

New perceptions do or do not automatically lead us to treating things, people, circumstances different or to act differently! Our different acts come from new verbs we use after we changed adjectives!

Just take the invention of the registry cash, a highly useful machine which today you may find in museums, vintage shops or yard sales. Once a revolution in stores around the world, one which transformed retail, this machine is treated as scrap now because the lack of data integration and Salesforce® API in this mechanical machine changes its perception to old, useless, outdated or incompatible. However it is still a mechanical cash register, no matter how many times you call it scrap based on a new interpretation of it and the new adjectives you use for it!

If you want people to do well without a vintage cash (or any other old tool / thing) give them the confidence that they can excel in a world without it! Drop the idea of having to create change or having to manage people through transition! Instead take on the duty of giving people confidence! Train them, teach them, give them tools, empower them and hand them the freedom to make lasting decisions for the organization!

In your words this requires to drop old outdated thinking about leadership and to push managers and leaders through a transition process where they learn to let go and to have confidence in people!

As for the most successful teams (a topic you loosely quoted) — those are the ones whose combat power is the highest, which are best knit together through common culture and thinking. Despite the risk it poses these days to sound like someone who argues against diversity, I keep recommending the book “Kampfkraft” by Matrin van Crevrld (I got the confidence to do so, for I believe in the understanding and inspiration to re-interpretation it can bring to readers).

The book shows how people who lack tools and supply, through common culture and processes, can achieve better KPIs than well equipped units (as this is a book on the most stressful environment humans know — war — the KPI in this case is kill-ratio).

With business organisations having their current hierarchies still modeled after 19th century armies, I believe that 20th century success stories of better organisation and leadership styles are helpful and a necessity to improve 21st century business organisations. And they can bring understanding to the potentials and limits of much propagated angles of views (adjectives) on facts and things (nouns) to result in better interaction with them (verbs). All this then hopefully brings better performance, better standards, better direction to organisations through better wording, better phrases which all require what gets ignored most: Grammar!

Like what you read? Give Stephan Jaeckel a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.