It requires a transformation of attitude/attitude/attitude towards the action partner, the goal and oneself (task, oneself, others). Instead of being trapped in individual or organizational narcissism, focusing only on one’s own needs, goals and missions, and in doing so violating the boundaries of others, the path to excellence requires consideration and appreciation of the person, his or her limits and also his or her development. Only then is there the basis for a lasting bond. Every imbalance on the one hand has a destructive effect on the relationship and on the other hand robs the connection and unity which is necessary to be able to solve really progressive and excellent problems.

The stronger the solidarity, the stronger the unity, the ability to act together, in which the secret of genuine excellence lies hidden. Everyone gives their best – together for the customer. When all parties are in open dialogue and learners with each other, they are on the common path to excellence together.

A person and also organizations that want to be successful in the long run should therefore strive for a transformation in the thinking and acting of their members, away from narcissism towards solidarity by preserving the boundaries of their employees, suppliers, customers, partners of all kinds. Integrity can actually be trained. However, it must be firmly and bindingly anchored in the basic values of the organization. First-level managers in the company in particular must want, live and specifically promote integrity. This is the only way to internalize integrity at all levels and lead to sustainable relationships – inside and outside the company.

Many business relationships suffer from a lack of sustainability. What is the reason for this? In short, our observation and research show that this phenomenon can be traced back to one cause: business relationships ultimately break down because one person wants to exploit the other or even exploit him one-sidedly – in other words, still seeks his personal profit even when the other person is already on the ground. Being made a loser involves a loss of face.

In some contexts, it can be experienced how the limits are maintained for a certain period of time, for example, to study the system or the other person. After the system or counterpart has been recorded and access to its system has been created, border observation is abandoned and only one’s own advantage is sought. The partner is therefore used as a stirrup for the personal success that is sought. After initially possibly good and successful cooperation, a perceived or actual imbalance arises. The relationship is doomed to failure from the moment the imbalance occurs.

It lacks a solid foundation: integrity. To be integer means to be connected in the relationship and not isolated. Many problems of our time can be traced back to individualization. This affects individuals as well as organizations. Connectedness arises from the fact that the boundary of the other is preserved. If this happens, then the feeling of appreciation is preserved. If the border of the other is (repeatedly) violated, then the person whose border is violated feels a lack of appreciation and distances himself from this intruder.

Only if both sides are permanent winners and also feel this way, will the basis of a lasting bond remain. The foundation is laid for real excellence to have a chance. Excellence only develops when everyone gives their best and this requires a positive motivation. Both parties give their utmost to the task since they are winners.

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: