Leader leads teams with Björn Rose

Hello Björn, the title of your offer sounds a bit unwieldy "Leader leads team" - Which hierarchy levels is the offer actually aimed at?
Our aim is to reach managers who lead a team or a department and to support them in a very practical, i.e. application-oriented way over a longer period of time. That is why this offer is structured as a learning process and not as a "one-off training".
What does "learning process" mean in concrete terms?
We know that learning is not the same as "programming". People do not store knowledge like computers. Only when what I have heard, trained and reflected on in training is applied does knowledge slowly but surely condense into experience and competence. We call this learning process and that is why we at "Leader leads Teams" think in programs and not in individual impulses.
What does such a program look like?
A basic structure is actually always recognizable: we start with a joint kick-off, where it is about getting to know each other, goals and also the mission of the participants*. The first module then revolves around the personality of the leader, strengths, development needs and individual learning goals. Before I am "let loose" on others, I should be able to lead myself. This is followed by modules on team leadership and leadership tools. We also integrate a module along customer-specific leadership models and also an operationalization of customer strategy into operational implementation. This is where things get very concrete and business-relevant. This structure corresponds to our Triangle Model: Leading myself, Leading others and Leading business. The whole thing is then concluded with a joint closing.
What makes this offer stand out from your competitors?
A whole lot: first of all, as I said before, we don't do a theory event. We offer business and practical support. Commitment and sustainability are very important to us. The commitment comes from the modular structure alone. The goals that the participants set for themselves at the beginning are, of course, also checked at the end. Sustainability is created above all by linking the modules through, for example, reminder apps, projects or network meetings. But there is even more that sets us apart from the competition: especially in times of online learning, we - by the way, also online - have the claim to always go into intensive interaction with the participants. Our feedback is not always complimentary, but consistently "appreciative" in the true sense of the word. We do not act as know-it-alls, but also not as moderating observers. We contribute our expertise, for example, in the form of feedback and reflection after exercises. The participants learn through their own experiences and individual feedback.
A Propos Methods: how are you positioned there?
Even before Corona, we were able to deliver all elements virtually or as face-to-face training. In both formats, we generate maximum impact. This is accompanied by a variety of digital media that are networked with each other. For example, participants work together in an MS team throughout the entire program. There is intensive networking among the participants - even beyond this program. At the same time, a digital learning landscape develops for the group, which is visualized by means of a whiteboard. The participants can access the complete documentation of the contents at any time - this is not possible in pure classroom training!
But what do you actually do in training? What methods do you use there?
If I were to list all the methods here, we would still be sitting here tomorrow morning. Perhaps one example will suffice to illustrate how we work: A real hoot is the "role feedback" method. We trainers slip into different roles that correspond to a certain perspective, e.g. board of directors, works council, colleague, customer, etc. The feedback is then verbalized according to this perspective. The feedback is then given along this perspective verbally and also non-verbally, e.g. pantomimic. Great, very educational fun. This is typical for our work: we stay in the business context and create a very motivating and also gladly humorous learning atmosphere. I really don't know of any competitors who can do that.
Your trainers must have a lot going for them. What is special about the trainers/consultants who implement this product?
Our trainers/consultants have in-depth leadership experience themselves. They have experienced everything - from perfect leadership moments to sobering situations. The participants also feel this. It is not only our knowledge, but above all the experience that creates a lot of trust and closeness between trainers and participants. Only in this way can intensive learning work. I claim that this caliber of trainer has become rather rare in a market that is increasingly dominated by trainer avatars. Our trainers/consultants dock on the real world of the participants.
The topic of "leadership" has changed in recent years. Where do you position yourselves? More "servant leadership" or more "announcement"?
Frankly, I don't like this polarizing discussion. The core issue is that there are leadership roles - however they are described - for which the organization has different expectations than for experts, for example. It is a truism that scientists in a research lab or software programmers want to be managed differently than shift workers in a paper factory. We remain consistently undogmatic and offer customer-specific solutions. Ideologically charged training concepts are not our thing.
But there are also changes that have nothing to do with ideology or polarization! How do you react, for example, to the increasing virtualization of collaboration through home office work or to the phenomenon of "quiet quitting," i.e., the lack of identification with the company and the resulting impulse to do "duty by the book"?
However, these are very relevant trends that we include in our training. For example, we have developed "Leader leads Teams" programs for startups that work purely virtually, i.e. without a shared office. There, we need to put a much greater emphasis on virtual collaboration and leading virtual teams. That then gets a greater emphasis as part of the program. "Quiet Quitting" is a thicker board, and I would be skeptical if the solution to this problem were placed only on the shoulders of managers. There would have to be a bigger picture in terms of culture development and change management. Within this framework, a training course could then also have a good effect, which, for example, particularly emphasizes the "purpose question". offstandards offers this.
Thanks for the interview, Björn!