When Leadership Is Shared and Trust Grows
What an evening at Hessischer Rundfunk reveals about shared responsibility, communication quality and real cultural change
What happens to an organisation whose structural logic for decades was: image or sound – and which then realises that the market and user behaviour changed long ago?
At a networking evening hosted by the Rhein-Main regional group of Inspiring Network e.V., Stephan Hütig had invited us to spend an evening at Hessischer Rundfunk. With a question in tow: how does an organisation actually manage this kind of transformation? Spoiler: not with yesterday's structures.
A Building With History
First there was a tour. The Gold Hall, the large broadcasting studio – a building modelled on the circular form of the Paulskirche, originally planned as a government seat in case Frankfurt became the capital of the new Federal Republic. Columns with gold leaf. It turned out differently. The building is now part of the HR campus.
Surprisingly small, a television studio. And at hr-iNFO we were allowed to be present live in the studio. Sometimes it takes a concrete place to understand what an organisation carries – and what holds it back.
Five People. Five Roles. One Shared Wheel.
Tiemen Glatt from the programme directorate described how their leadership team practises shared responsibility and role-based working: five people, five clearly defined roles – HR, strategy, processes, programme & communications, ARD. No hierarchy in the classical sense. No decision carried by just one person.
What stays with me most: they didn't just build a new structure, they cultivated a different attitude. Multiperspectivity and difference as strengths. Eye level instead of loss of power. And so much trust has grown through shared leadership that no one would want to give up that safe space again.
In my work with leadership teams, I see this repeatedly: shared leadership rarely fails because of the structure. It fails when the underlying attitude is missing. When roles are formally distributed but the genuine willingness to work at eye level isn't there. The HR model shows what becomes possible when both come together.
Communication as Investment, Not Cost
A full day per week dedicated to communication formats among five people. Plus ongoing chats experienced as a resource rather than a source of friction. That sounds like a lot. And it is a lot.
And yet: under pressure and uncertainty, they deliberately invest in their communication quality. Because they have learned that this ultimately leads to faster and better decisions.
From a systemic perspective, I can only underline this: communication is not the pause between the actual work. It is the work. Especially in transformation processes, where orientation is scarce and trust is the stabilising element.
Disruption as a Sign of Real Change
At the same time, this way of working causes friction: with the works council, with employees, with other ARD broadcasters. They simply cannot imagine that anyone would do this – let alone that it works.
I recognise this. Those who genuinely change something in organisations generate disruption. Not as a side effect, but as a signal that something new has entered the world. In systemic terms: a stable system responds to deviation with resistance. When that resistance comes from outside and the team holds together on the inside, it is often a good sign.
What I Take With Me
Transformation is not a communication project. But it doesn't succeed without communication. And it needs teams willing to share responsibility – not because it looks more efficient on paper, but because they have understood that complex challenges need more than one perspective.
The evening wound down in the HR Pinte. Networking, good wine, evening sun. And a few thoughts that will stay for a while.
How about your organisation: where is leadership already being shared? And how has that influenced trust within the team?
