Andreas von der Heydt, the current situation of recession, uncertainty, and pressure to transform is overwhelming for many people. As part of your coaching, you talk a lot to executives in companies. To what extent is the increased pressure affecting organizations?
What I am increasingly experiencing in my coaching and consulting work with executives worldwide – regardless of industry and company size – is not simply “more pressure.” It is often a toxic combination: organizations and executives are expected to be super innovative AND highly cost-efficient, to transform radically AND offer security, to be permanently agile AND radiate calm. This pressure does not lead to more clarity, but to a kind of organizational dissociation.
What does that mean?
Senior management takes refuge in strategic ‘window dressing’ coupled with vague glossy presentations, while middle management sinks into a permanent frenzy of execution, without the two worlds really being connected anymore. What is referred to in organizational psychology as “sense-making,” i.e., the joint construction of meaning of what is happening, simply no longer takes place.
Thus, people are drifting apart, so to speak?
In many organizations, what I call “emotional debt” is currently emerging: unresolved conflicts, unprocessed losses, pent-up frustrations. The CEO of a technology company recently told me during our coaching session how efficiently his team had implemented the second restructuring in 18 months. When I asked, “And when did you talk to your team about how these constant changes are affecting people?”, there was a long silence. His answer: “There’s no time for that right now.” That is when our actual coaching work began.
Perhaps the manager did not care how his employees were doing?
The crux of the matter is that organizations and managers believe they cannot afford emotional reflection. Yet it is precisely the lack of this that causes transformations to fail, top performers to leave, and innovation to stagnate. Research on psychological safety clearly shows that those teams able to talk about their emotions and uncertainties and establishing an appropriate framework for open and supportive collaboration, are not only more resilient, but also more productive and innovative. Instead, managers under pressure tend to tighten control. They increasingly measure control closely, and lose sight of the big picture. In reality, organizations now need the opposite, meaning more trust, more delegation skills, and more tolerance for ambiguity.
“What worries me most, however, is the loneliness of leadership positions. Many have no one to talk to openly about their doubts. This isolation exacerbates everything else.”
When results are needed quickly, this is of course easier said than done.
Sure. It means accepting your own uncertainty instead of suppressing it. The central leadership challenge of our time is that managers must learn to no longer be the ones who have all the answers, but rather the ones who ask the best questions and create spaces where uncertainty can be
acknowledged without being considered a weakness. Many organizations suffer not from a lack of strategy or digitalization, but from a fundamental lack of psychological safety and critical self-reflection at the management level. The real transformation is not digital; it is deeply human.
What factors do you currently perceive as most stressful for companies and managers?
Several dynamics are at play here. Paradoxically, the first is not uncertainty itself, but the lack of permission to admit uncertainty. Executives must provide answers when no one really knows what the markets will look like in six months. This forced false sense of security is emotionally draining. The second factor is the speed of multiple changes. A CEO recently told me, “Today we are launching the fifth initiative before the first one has really taken effect.” This constant simultaneity makes strategic thinking nearly impossible. Added to this is the polarization of the workforce. Managers need to manage extreme opposites: flexibility versus structure, purpose versus security, enthusiasm for AI versus existential fears. This requires emotional intelligence that many have not been prepared for. What worries me most, however, is the loneliness of leadership positions. Many have no one to talk to openly about their doubts. This isolation exacerbates everything else. The bottom line is that all these factors have become the new normal. We therefore need to fundamentally rethink how we lead without losing our ability to shape the future.
So, what does leadership mean in times of multiple crises?
Unfortunately, this cannot be summarized in simple recipes… But there are clear patterns that I observe time and again, both destructive and constructive. The most common and dangerous mistake is what can be called the “activism trap.” Managers fall into a frenzy of activity. Another workshop, another task force, another reorganization. They confuse movement with progress. Behind this is often their own fear of being perceived as inactive or weak leaders. But this constant busyness exhausts teams and destroys trust.
What other “traps” are there?
In demanding leadership situations, there is a tendency toward emotional sterility. Managers retreat into numbers, data, and facts and completely ignore the human dimension. They then talk primarily about efficiency gains, but not about the value and potential of their teams. The paradox is that, especially in crises, people need not only rational but above all emotional guidance. Finally, selective transparency is another typical mistake in times of crisis. Managers often share only the “good” information and withhold what they perceive to be stressful information, in order to spare the team. In doing so, they massively underestimate the intelligence of their employees. People sense when something is being concealed, and rumours and mistrust thrive in this information vacuum. Partial truths are more toxic than uncomfortable truths.
“The best leaders in crises are not those who do the most, but those who have the courage to consciously not do things. They reduce complexity, create focus, and protect their teams from being overwhelmed.”
So, what can be done?
Leadership in crises requires three things above all: First, clarity in attitude, not in answers. It is not about having all the solutions, but about communicating clearly what you stand for, what principles guide your decisions, and that you will navigate through uncertainty. For example, as a manager, you should say something like, “I can’t tell you where we’ll be in two years. But I can tell you how we want to get there and that we will do it together.” Second, it is about radical prioritization rather than addition. The best leaders in crises are not those who do the most, but those who have the courage to consciously not do things. They reduce complexity, create focus, and protect their teams from being overwhelmed by simultaneity. This also means making unpopular decisions and stopping projects.
And thirdly?
Presence and approachability. In crises, people need their leaders to be visible, approachable, and genuine. Not perfect, not unshakeable, but authentic. The most powerful moments in my coaching sessions are often those when leaders learn to say, “I don’t know exactly how this will turn out either, but I’m here, and I’m going to tackle this together with my team.” Clear, honest communication builds trust. And trust is the currency that carries weight, especially in difficult times. People can handle hard truths if they feel that they are being taken seriously and not left in the dark.
Nevertheless, managers are only human, and we must assume that the current ‘poly crisis’ is affecting many managers just as much as their employees. How do you keep your team motivated when you yourself are feeling the pressure?
Even in the most difficult situations, we can control what we focus on. It is not about sugarcoating things, but about consciously shaping the situation: What small steps forward have we taken? Where have we stuck together as a team? What can we influence, even if much is beyond our control? As a manager, I must set an example by not freezing up in crisis mode, but remaining capable of action. That means I acknowledge reality and point out ways forward. I provide guidance by setting clear priorities. I celebrate interim successes, even if they are small. And I create spaces where the team can vent their frustration without it turning into resignation. Ultimately, motivation comes from a sense of self-efficacy. When people experience that their actions have an effect, even if only in a small area, they stay in the game. The task of a manager is to enable precisely these experiences and make them visible.
Does it help to point out that crises can also be seen as opportunities? What is your view on this?
The phrase “Let’s use the crisis as an opportunity” has become a platitude for many people because it can come across as trivializing at the wrong moment. At the same time, I observe that we in Europe like to hide behind this attitude of fundamentally rejecting it. In the US and many Asian countries, people deal with crises in a much more pragmatic way. After all, it’s true that crises force us to question things and do them differently. They create scope for changes that previously seemed unthinkable. The question for managers is simply: when and how do I address this?
And your answer?
A proven approach is to first acknowledge reality and then open new perspectives. When the team is exhausted, it does not need rhetoric about opportunities, but rather relief and guidance. However, when there are moments to catch your breath, managers should ask: What have we learned? What are we doing differently now? What do we want to keep doing? Where are the new and better opportunities for us? So it is about consciously looking for learning effects and growth opportunities. That is precisely the core of what the sentence means when you live it correctly.
“A crisis forces clarity, but it can also reshape identity. “
Where do you see real opportunities in a recession?
When markets collapse and budgets shrink, the veil falls. You then realize what really works, what is holding you back, what is long overdue. Processes that have crept in, projects with no real value, structures that no one needs. It is the moment to cut old ties, break down encrustations, and implement radical changes that would have failed due to resistance in good times. At the same time, opportunities suddenly arise that were previously unthinkable. Top talent becomes available, and good minds seek new challenges. Those who invest prudently and purposefully in people and ideas now () will build a head start for the next chapter. A crisis forces clarity, but it can also reshape identity. It is an opportunity to renew mission, purpose, and values, to rekindle teams, and to strengthen the sense of unity. The shared spirit of “now more than ever” can unleash more energy than any innovation project.
You talk about “high-impact leadership” as a pioneering approach to successfully shaping the future. What does that mean to you? Doesn’t leadership always aim for “high impact,” i.e., the greatest possible effect?
At first glance, one would indeed think that leadership should always aim for maximum impact. But let us be honest. It does not. The concept of high-impact leadership that I have developed means that top organizations and leaders achieve transformative and sustainable impact in three dimensions simultaneously, and that is the crucial point.
What are these dimensions?
The first dimension is the professional dimension, the “what” of leadership. This is about generating the highest possible level of efficiency in everything that can be measured quantitatively and qualitatively: sales, profit, growth rates, market share, successful product launches, etc. In other words, classic business. In the second dimension, the personal dimension, the “who” of leadership, we are talking about maximum impact gained from relationships, genuine collaboration, and deep partnerships. It is about developing employees, growing together as people, learning, and becoming better. Leading yourself and others more effectively. This is approached much less frequently in a well-founded and systematic manner.The third dimension, the “why” of leadership, is about achieving maximum impact as an organization and leader for people outside the professional environment. For the neighborhood, the community, for society as a whole. Only five percent of companies manage to systematically and concertedly focus on all three dimensions at the same time. And that is precisely the difference between classic corporate management and high-impact leadership.
What qualities characterize high-impact leaders today?
There are five sets of competencies that distinguish high-impact leaders and their organizations: First, psychological safety. This means that employees can openly express their opinions and admit mistakes without fear of negative consequences. Second, growth mindset. These leaders see challenges as learning opportunities and know that skills can be developed and are not set in stone. Third, ownership. They take radical responsibility for results and inspire others to do the same, rather than resorting to excuses or playing the victim. Fourth, operational excellence. Such leaders and organizations combine goals and strategies with consistent implementation as a philosophy and discipline in order to continuously improve and achieve effective results at the same time. And fifth, coaching mindset. They develop people through empowerment coupled with responsibility rather than through instructions. They understand leadership as empowerment rather than control.
Can this be learned?
“Leadership sets the direction and makes decisions. Coaching develops the ability to set your own direction and make better decisions together.”
Absolutely. Of course, there are people who start with certain prerequisites, perhaps more empathy or natural curiosity. But these five dimensions are learnable skills. I have worked with hundreds of executives and their teams who have developed significantly. The decisive factor is not talent, but the willingness to face up to this honestly and wanting to grow continuously, even if it hurts at times.
You emphasize—not least in your book—the power of a coaching culture. How do you establish a genuine coaching culture?
Seven success factors are needed to build a genuine coaching culture in an organization and anchor it sustainably: First, a common understanding is needed. You must clearly define what coaching is, what it should be used for, and what it should not be used for. Without this clarification, everyone will be talking on something different. The second step is to clarify the expectations and goals of coaching for the organization. Clear, measurable goals should be agreed upon for each area. Third, a project manager is needed to set up and take responsibility for a coaching program in the company. At the same time, a visible sponsor from the top team is just as important as the operational owner, who should have coaching and change management expertise. Next, the chosen coaching approach, the techniques to be used, the process, etc. are defined. Clear quality standards must then be established. The sixth success factor is practical integration into the company. Specialized and coordinated training courses are set up to practice the immediate application of coaching in everyday life through various exercises, role-plays, etc. Ultimately, the aim is to ensure the transfer of learning with the help of peer supervision, integration into employee appraisals, career development plans, etc. My book also describes a concrete rollout plan for a coaching program for every type of organization.
So, everyone should buy the book! What distinguishes coaching from classic leadership?
Leadership sets the direction and makes decisions. Coaching develops the ability to set your own direction and make better decisions together. The fundamental difference lies in the basic attitude. Leadership works with answers, coaching with questions. A manager says, “Here’s the problem, this is how we’re going to solve it.” A coach asks, “What do you see? What options have you overlooked? What is preventing you from implementing them consistently? How can we do better?”
Don’t we need both?
Yes, because leadership creates dependency, even if it is well-intentioned. Every time a manager provides a solution, they take away the team’s opportunity to develop their own problem-solving skills. Coaching does the opposite; it builds independence. Nevertheless, classic, more directive leadership is indispensable when, for example, the proverbial “house is on fire” and quick, clear decisions are necessary. The best managers can switch between both modes. They recognize when they need to make consistent decisions and when they should develop. However, many get stuck in one mode and wonder why teams either become dependent or feel patronized. In my work, I try to convey that coaching is not a softer form of leadership. It requires different skills, such as active listening, consciously taking a back seat as a manager in certain situations, empowering teams, enduring silence, and having the discipline not to provide solutions, even if you have them. This is extremely difficult for many experienced managers because their entire success has been based on having answers and solutions at their fingertips.
“Too many companies still treat coaching as something to be indulged in during good times. This is fundamentally wrong.”
Companies believe that there are currently more pressing issues than establishing a coaching culture. I suspect that you see things differently.
This is precisely where the problem lies. Too many companies still treat coaching as something to be indulged in during good times. This is fundamentally wrong. In crises and difficult times like now, the complexity of tasks and decisions explodes. Managers must make decisions under extreme pressure with incomplete information, decisions that will have repercussions for years to come. This is precisely when they need an experienced sparring partner who can accompany them on an equal footing, challenge them, and help them avoid falling back into old patterns or inaction under stress. A good coach interrupts these automatic responses precisely when they are most dangerous.
My impression is that many coaches are currently underemployed.
Possibly. However, this is not the case for those who have many years of experience as top executives in complex and dynamic environments and have in-depth coaching experience. They have proven that they create real added value for both, the executive, and their organization. Those who have sold coaching as a nice round of discussions are now being weeded out. And rightly so. At the same time, it is not easy to find a good executive coach who is not already booked up months in advance. At its core, is not about whether you can afford coaching. It is rather about whether you can afford to have executives operating at the highest level without qualified sparring partners in these challenging times. The costs of bad decisions and wrong choices exceed any coaching budget many times over.
Where in your career to date have you encountered a genuine coaching culture?
A genuine coaching culture exists when leadership functions primarily through empowerment rather than instruction. Managers then delegate significant responsibility, clarify expectations, do not intervene directly, and conduct structured reflection discussions that empower people to develop solutions themselves. Ideally, such an organization is very rare, at best in sub-areas. What I have experienced is that individual managers consistently live by this principle, while the rest of the organization manages and controls in the traditional way. A coaching culture only emerges when individual leadership attitudes and organizational framework conditions come together. A leader can lead by coaching in their area, but without the appropriate structures, time budgets, and incentive systems, this remains fragile and unscalable. Depending on the manager, employees experience completely different realities within the same organization. Some grow exponentially, while others literally wither away, depending on who they report to and the structures behind them.
“Strong leadership provides orientation in complex situations, demands performance and responsibility, but always remains human. It combines a strong focus on results with a genuine interest in people.”
Is your book the result of positive observations and your own experiences? Or is it more of a reaction and recommendation on how things should be done differently?
The book is the sum of several years of research, including the latest findings on leadership and coaching, as well as my doctoral thesis, combined with almost 30 years of work in companies and collaboration with hundreds of managers over the last 20 years. In a sense, it is the distillation of all this work and is therefore neither theory nor mere practical anecdotes, but rather a condensation of what has been proven to work, is scientifically sound, and has proven itself in a wide variety of organizations, industries, and countries.
You have worked for traditional German retailers such as Tchibo and Rewe, as well as global players such as L’Oreal and Amazon. Which of these companies comes closest to your ideal in terms of leadership culture and leadership practice?
In addition to my time at L’Oréal, Amazon, Rewe, and Tchibo, I have also worked directly for other companies and collaborated with many other organizations from a wide range of industries and cultures as an executive coach and consultant. From watch manufacturers in Switzerland to aerospace companies in the US. Name dropping would not do justice to this and would also be counterproductive.
That is a shame. We would have been interested to hear about it.
What really matters is what constitutes strong leadership. It provides orientation in complex situations, demands performance and responsibility, but always remains human. It combines a strong focus on results with a genuine interest in people. It demands excellence, discipline, and courage. And at the same time, it knows that a healthy and sustainable leadership culture can only emerge when people feel trusted, have a say, and are allowed to develop. This form of leadership is not a style, but an attitude. It manifests itself where leaders create clarity, live responsibility, and consistently balance results and people orientation. Regardless of which company is on the business card.
Dr. Andreas von der Heydt is an executive coach, consultant, and leadership expert. His focus is on high-impact leadership, transformation management, and the development of organization-wide coaching programs. Based on a 25-year international career as a managing director and board member ( ) in leading companies, as well as 20 years of experience as an internal and external coach, he supports top executives in Germany and abroad. Andreas is a senior lecturer for leadership and coaching at the European Business School (EBS), author of several books on leadership and coaching, and a sought-after keynote speaker on forward-looking leadership topics.
