Newsletter Dialogische Kultur | November 2025

Before the year draws to a close, we're back with a new edition of our newsletter. In the following article, Karl-Martin Dietz addresses the question of the significance of structures in a Dialogical Culture.

We wish you a pleasant Advent season and restful Christmas holidays.

Structures, Impulses, Competencies, and Standing Waves

On the Relationship Between Power and Insight in Collaboration

In connection with the interview "The Individual and the Whole: Dialogical Culture – A Transformation Process" in the journal "Sozialimpulse" No. 01/2025, my remarks on "structure" at the end of the interview were critically examined in a small group. I expressly thank you for the suggestions I gained from these objections and will gladly try to address them. The questions focused primarily on two aspects:

1) Why do "structures," which are otherwise so popular in the context of "leadership" and management, recede into the background in a Dialogical Culture? What takes their place?

Structures are undoubtedly important, but they are not the main issue. In detail: In corporate management, "structure" refers to the fixed framework, the rules and principles within which actual collaboration (the "operational business") takes place. Structure stands for clarity and reliability. On the other hand, the inflexibility associated with anything structural also gives rise to dissatisfaction, as it largely channels the paths of action. Repeated "restructuring" is therefore already part of everyday business. Often, the structure is adapted ("optimized") to new requirements at increasingly shorter intervals. Managing "change" is still considered a kind of "royal road" by many management consultants. However, structure is increasingly failing to deliver precisely what it is supposed to provide: a reliable basis for collaboration in companies and organizations. Within a company, structure also regulates—almost incidentally—command lines and hierarchical responsibilities. However, the significance of these is already in flux. Within a relatively short time, circumstances have changed considerably, even reversing them in some respects:

• The skills (“competencies”) of individual stakeholders have gained more weight compared to collective, inflexible regulations. Autonomy and initiative are particularly in demand.
• Independent action by individuals (individual initiative coupled with increasing responsibility for the whole) is more appropriate for decision-making situations in companies than a hierarchical approach (Dietz & Sandtmann, 2024).

For some years now, it has become clear that the old, structure- and hierarchy-based management model is no longer viable. Since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc more than 30 years ago, we have been living in politics and business under VUCA conditions. Volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity define the environment and take their toll. Attempts are being made to domesticate what has become uncontrollable in the classical sense through “agility.” However, these attempts to regulate the uncontrollable are not truly convincing (Dietz, 2020a).

In a Dialogical Culture, the approach is different from the outset. Of course, the value of structures is not denied, as no one can function without order. And every organization has its "structure," even if it is poorly organized. But in a Dialogical Culture, structures are counterbalanced by a second factor: the "entrepreneurial" element, a mentally fueled willpower that can also be called "impulse" or "impulse generation." This willpower, which can be individually shaped and managed, ultimately guarantees the success of a working group—far more so than tired rules of conduct that are adopted under the protection of a structure and attempted to be made "binding." Rather, the question increasingly arises as to how (optimally configured) framework conditions can be concretely filled with content, i.e., enlivened with impulses. Therefore, in a Dialogical Culture, structures have more of an orienting than a normative character. To act successfully, impulse generation is essential. However, one would generally perpetuate an old error if one were to divide the dynamic process of leadership into two distinct parts, namely forms (structures) and content (impulses), instead of seeing them as two poles of the same phenomenon.

An interjection:
Have we perhaps overlooked something here? It is striking that, in both the theory and practice of management, the topics of "structure" and "hierarchy" still occupy, in part, the same central position as they have since Frederick Taylor's "The Principles of Scientific Management" (1911). What is the reason for this? – One assumption: even modern management still relies on power. – What else should it rely on? – Perhaps: on insight? – If the "togetherness" in "collaboration" is no longer established through directives and their adherence, but rather arises from the participants' practiced insight, then successful action is no longer based on following directives, but on everyone striving for the best solution or contributing to its discovery. Furthermore, the demands on intellectual and emotional independence have increased in clearly observable steps since the beginning of the 20th century (for more details, see Dietz, 2008, pp. 33-42). The intellectual capacity of individual employees has undoubtedly gained increasing importance. However, the continued prevalence of the terms "structure" and "hierarchy" signals that power and its gradient still exert the decisive influence on individual actions.
This holds true even though the topic of "motivation" has played an increasingly significant role for decades. Those who seemingly follow "motivational measures" independently, instead of internalizing rules or waiting for instructions from others, have not eliminated the power factor, but merely masked it. Those who, instead of acting out of fear of "punishment" (a quite common expression in earlier leadership theories!), now follow a new scheme based on "rewards" have simply reversed the nature of the exercise of power. They no longer act directly out of "fear of the master," but in anticipation of a monetary and/or prestigious advantage for themselves: "bonuses" and "company cars," so to speak. Upon closer examination, their actions are no less externally determined than in earlier times when "fear" prevailed. Viewed in the same light, the once-lauded "self-optimization" also becomes recognizable as a consequential self-deception (for more details, see Dietz, 2020b). The still-prevailing neoliberal perspective misunderstands "community" and "cooperation" as a matter of course, as a balancing of self-referential interests regulated by an "invisible hand" (Adam Smith).
End of interjection.

This changes when Dialogic Processes, rather than structures, become the fundamental element of the organization. "Processes instead of structures: This means movement instead of stagnation, paths instead of walls. The flow of ideas and actions carves its own path instead of being channeled into concrete canals. Processes are conducive to change without the need to first loosen entrenched structures. They enable interaction and collaborative learning" (Dietz, 2014, pp. 14-15). In contrast to structures, regulations, and constitutions, the driving force requires no external constraints but can shape itself through something like standing waves (e.g., rapids) through which water constantly flows. The faster the water flows, the more stable the wave! Conversely, if the mass and speed of the flow change, then the shape and force of the wave also change (see Dietz & Sandtmann, 2024, p. 71).

A Dialogic corporate Culture therefore speaks not of "structures" but rather of "processes," which, unlike structures, do not exist side by side but interact in one another. While structures only encompass the fixed, "spatially" established aspects of an organization, processes allow for the observation, flexibility, and volition of deliberate impulses (initiatives). Dialogic Processes can thus provide a firm foundation for current actions even without structural "channeling." Both structure and impulse exist simultaneously within these processes, not antagonistically, but integrated.

But is it even possible to make clear decisions under such unstructured circumstances, decisions that are supported by as many people as possible? That's what it ultimately comes down to. To avoid uncertainty, people have so far simply submitted to the entire hierarchical decision-making process. – Why shouldn't structure-neutral decisions actually be possible? In earlier times, the sole decision-maker had advisors and counselors who provided him with experience, ideas, and knowledge upon which to base his decisions. Today, these have largely been replaced by a range of "success methods" that decision-makers are expected to internalize and master if they don't want to get lost in a jungle of more or less complicated procedures.

The question, therefore, is: What used to be (granted or self-acquired) authority, and has since been increasingly replaced by democratic majority decisions: What would a sensible equivalent look like today? What corresponds to this in a collaboration based on individual responsibility? "The central question is: How do personally responsible decisions arise that are not solitary decisions, but are supported by others? – Decisions of this kind are prepared in a Dialogical culture by the other processes [...]. Then there is no need to fear that the 'independent' individuals will clash, because they work together in the interest of the whole at every step. The other processes are also present in the decision-making process itself, down to the smallest detail: Encounter is based on trust in the individual; in the interest of transparency, everything must be considered as far as possible, including what is missing or has not yet been achieved; the strength of the ideas also determines the decision and its consequences. In a Dialogical culture, there are various possibilities for this, from whose suggestions a working group (company, organization, etc.) can find and develop its own appropriate approach. This is part of the essence of dialogism and applies to all its processes, but especially to decision-making" (Dietz & Sandtmann, 2024, pp. 67-68). Should individual ideas for shaping and securing individually made decisions fail to materialize, there are still several proven methods available, such as "consultative case decision-making," "resistance surveys," or "peer objection integration" (Oestereich & Schröder, 2019, pp. 98-100).

Conclusion:
Those who primarily rely on structures as the decisive organizing principle for collaboration overlook the fact that a company's success is not primarily due to its organizational structure, but rather to the intellectual commitment of its employees. –

Furthermore, there was another objection to my assessment of "structures":

2) Isn't it repeatedly observed that structural changes, in turn, influence the attitudes and beliefs of those involved? That structures are not merely the results of other design processes, but that they themselves also have an effect? ​​

Empirically, this objection is understandable. But is that really surprising? – After all, something other than structural change is rarely mandated. There is currently no basis for comparison with a different approach. Intellectual "impulses" are either absent from conventional leadership methods or go unnoticed and are not explicitly articulated. Since a point of comparison is generally lacking, "structure" becomes the bottleneck through which everything else must pass: for example, increased responsibility, increased trust, greater autonomy, improved cooperation skills, etc. All of this can then appear as a welcome consequence of structural change; however, the underlying shift in attitude and will has not been recognized or reflected upon.

Conclusion: Focusing primarily on structures prevents us from recognizing the underlying attitudes, insights, impulses of will, etc., that drive action. Against this backdrop, the term "structures" is used only sparingly in the context of Dialogical culture. Instead, the emphasis is on the fact that "leadership" ultimately only makes sense in the sense of "self-leadership" (Dietz & Sandtmann, 2024). Those who want to make their company/organization fit for the future will therefore focus primarily on what is called "impulse" here, and will by no means be satisfied with mere "restructuring" (cf. Dietz, 2024).

Karl-Martin Dietz

Literature

Dietz, K.-M. (2008). Jeder Mensch ein Unternehmer. Grundzüge einer dialogischen Kultur. KIT.

Dietz, K.-M. (2014). Dialog. Die Kunst der Zusammenarbeit. Menon.

Dietz, K.-M. (2020a). Führen in der VUCA-Welt. Dialogische Orientierungen. Aspekte der Dialogischen Kultur. Menon.

Dietz, K.-M. (2020b). Sokratische oder sophistische Selbstführung. Konfliktdynamik, 9 (2), S. 173-179. https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-0147-2020-3-173

Dietz, K.-M. (2024). Heute lässt sich doch keiner mehr führen! Götz W. Werners Beitrag zur Dialogischen Unternehmenskultur (Neuausgabe 2024). Forschungsstelle Dialogische Kultur.

Dietz, K.-M. & Sandtmann, A. (2024). Eigenständig im Sinne des Ganzen. Zur Intention der Dialogischen Unternehmenskultur (Neuausgabe 2024). Forschungsstelle Dialogische Kultur.

Oestereich, B. & Schröder, C. (2019). Agile Organisationsentwicklung. Handbuch zum Aufbau anpassungsfähiger Organisationen. Vahlen.