In his guest article, Dr. Gerd Wirtz explains why a company’s future viability depends not only on strategy and corporate culture, but also on the state of mind of the people in positions of responsibility.
When companies talk about future viability, the focus is usually on topics such as strategy, transformation, skills shortages, innovation capacity or corporate culture. Strategies are formulated, programmes are put in place – and yet implementation is progressing only slowly in many organisations.
This is because a company’s performance does not depend solely on processes, structures and key performance indicators. It is also determined by the mental and physical state in which managers make decisions, set priorities, mediate conflicts and shape change.
Companies often measure culture, engagement and performance very precisely. The health of their senior management, however, frequently remains a blind spot.
Leadership is more than just professional competence
Leadership is often understood in companies primarily as a question of competence: anyone who communicates clearly, delegates effectively and can motivate teams is regarded as a good leader. This is true – but it does not tell the whole story.
For leadership is always linked to biological and mental factors. Anyone who is constantly under pressure, sleeps poorly and experiences little genuine rest leads differently – even if this is not immediately apparent to others.
Decisions become more short-term, reactions more impulsive, and patience and openness to change diminish. Complexity is perceived as a threat more quickly. This has immediate consequences for teams, projects and, ultimately, the entire organisation.
The blind spot in many companies
Very few organisations systematically ask themselves under what conditions leadership actually takes place. How high is the chronic stress at management level? How widespread are sleep deprivation, mental exhaustion and constant availability? How stable are focus, self-regulation and stress resilience? And what impact do these factors have on what actually happens at crucial moments?
This connection is not a mere assumption, but clearly demonstrable: overload is a measurable risk factor – not only for the individuals affected, but also for the organisations they lead.
Longer life expectancy, longer leadership careers
Added to this is another dimension that has so far received little attention in a corporate context: leadership careers today span significantly longer periods than they did a generation ago. Someone who takes on a role of responsibility in their mid-forties may continue in that role for another 20 or 25 years – in an environment that is not becoming calmer, but rather more dynamic and demanding.
This also changes the central question. It is no longer just about how someone remains effective over the next two or three years. It is about how people remain clear-headed, resilient and capable of action over decades.
Companies that structurally ignore this aspect rely on leaders whose performance they do not actively sustain. Sustainable leadership therefore belongs on the strategic agenda – and not just in the HR programme.
Longevity is also an economic issue
Longevity is often associated with diet, exercise, sleep and preventive healthcare – in other words, with individual health behaviours. At its core, however, it is about something much bigger: how people can remain healthy, resilient and capable of functioning for as long as possible. And this is precisely what is highly relevant for businesses.
Expertise alone is not enough if the ability to think and act clearly under constant pressure is lacking. It is equally crucial to remain effective in the long term without burning out. Anyone who views this solely as a private health issue underestimates how strongly this factor influences the performance of organisations.
Leadership health is an organisational issue
Health in the workplace is often categorised under benefits, preventative measures or personal responsibility. This falls short.
If organisations expect leaders to provide direction under high pressure, shape change and guide teams through uncertainty, then the question of the necessary prerequisites is no minor matter. Companies that rely solely on individual resilience without considering the structural framework of leadership are starting from the wrong point.
Conclusion:
The future viability of companies depends on strategy, structures and culture – but equally on the well-being of the people who bear responsibility. Those who lead under constant pressure affect not only their own health, but also the quality of decisions, collaboration and change processes throughout the organisation.
Longevity is therefore far more than just a health issue. It concerns leadership, performance and the question of how companies remain effective in the long term.
Book Gerd Wirtz for a talk on longevity and leadership: or gerd.wirtz@speakers-management.com