The global financial and economic systems currently mark the end of the fifth Kondratieff cycle, very high volatilities and thus massive uncertainties. What are the drivers of future prosperity and growth? The basic innovation that will generate global economic growth in the upcoming sixth Kondratieff cycle has apparently not yet been found or is not publicly known. The Asian world’s emergence into prosperity brings with it massive demand, but is driven by the dynamics of “catching up”, but not by the dynamics of content renewal through a global leap in innovation.

The question of where global future economic growth based on innovation will come from remains unanswered. The current general uncertainty is so great because, on the one hand, the existing systems of the past are increasingly failing and, on the other, there are no suitable prospects for the future. Such a situation of transition from something familiar and formerly well-functioning old to something completely unknown new is experienced by many as a shock. Dealing with these transitions (not yet change!) processes require special skills and abilities. It comes to destabilizations. Previously proven solutions, e.g. strategy development and implementation, employee retention and development, organizational development, leadership, etc., no longer work as usual. Old-fashioned mechanisms and techniques have had their day, new things want to be born, but nobody knows when and where childbirth will take place and who or what will be the decisive triggers. Large change processes are always connected with changes in thinking and acting. Erwin Laszlo presented in his theory of macro-shift that in such situations whole paradigms of thinking, i.e. (mental) attitudes, experience profound change, through which the world has seen, judged and treated its problems.

The corporate strategy is the sum of all the plans of managers and employees in the company, which are intended to make the long-term survival of the company possible by considering the possible alternative future prospects in the company and the environments relevant to the company.

The target bearers of every strategy are all those involved in the company, not just the management because everyone is affected and interested in the continued existence of the company. Strategy development and implementation is still regarded as a top-down process in large parts of the academic world and, above all, by most management consultancies. Here an almost impenetrable dogma prevails. The justification for this approach is that it is necessary to set targets from above because employees are not competent to develop the strategy. Behind this paradigm of thinking, which has been conveyed for many years, a Tayloristic approach can be seen: A distinction is made between manual and mental work. And practice teaches us better over and over again: In almost every company in which the strategy is understood as a TOP-DOWN process, we have observed for years that it basically dies at the second or at the latest third management level and from then on is no longer implemented in the company. Even the middle management therefore no longer really accepts the strategy, not to mention the employees who carry out the daily work. Even complex measures to communicate strategy are often unsuccessful, it does not penetrate into the workforce, is neither understood, affirmed and internalized nor lived. Who is surprised? A paradigm shift is urgently needed here.

In an unhealthy company, employees, customers, suppliers, and their representatives are just resources that have to work. This corresponds to a long outdated image of men from scientific management and Fordism, which, however, is unfortunately still and felt in practice in recent years again strongly increasingly to be found. The tendency to reform is not a necessity, but a means to an end at the expense of the quality of the partnership in order to increase one’s own profit. The motto: The collaborating, supplying, buying person must adapt to the system and function. If he does not function, he is replaced.

In the Human Resources and Human Relations approaches that will follow later, the motivation of people has been recognized as a business success factor – but it is still only a means to an end. The motivation of the human being must, therefore, be exploited as optimally as possible in order to achieve one’s own selfish corporate goals. The logical consequence of this attitude is often the attempt with and without cheap tricks to exploit the motivation of employees, suppliers, and customers for one’s own advantage. This does not really mean that something is gained in the interests of the stakeholders. Thus a self-generated togetherness arises, which is a game of losing between exploitation, submission, hypocrisy, and camouflage in both directions. The result is neither professional quality nor excellent results and successes, a large part of the energy goes into the “strategic management” of relationships, instead of creating high product and service quality and optimal result achievement. Actually, there is no friendly solidarity with mutual esteem and common goals, but only an exploiting community of convenience. True integrity (connectedness) does not exist in such cooperation, but it can be found wherever top performance is required.

What would happen if the key to releasing authentic motivation were to lie in seeking and recognizing the real benefits for the employee, the supplier and the customer? A real bond, a real wholeness (integrity) as a starting point. The consequences of such a claim attitude towards the action partners would be that one would truly turn one’s attention to the successful participants and consider how they can really be integrated in order to become better themselves, as it were. This means that the partners do not merely have to function, but that they form a unity with each other (integrity). It is no longer primarily a matter of exploiting the other for one’s own advantage, but of developing further in partnership through mutual respect and esteem.

What have I done to deserve this? This question has probably already been asked by many managers. The answer is as simple as it is simple: through one’s own bad or good example because employee behavior always reflects boss behavior.

Every employee looks at his or her boss and orients his or her own behavior towards his or her role model. The way in which the superior deals with something is a critical success factor for employee behavior. Superiors are particularly important in three areas: dealing with the task, themselves and others. The following behavior is perceived positively by the environment: