Some time ago, I met a colleague with whom I had worked intensively a long time ago. She told me how much she had appreciated that period and that she often thought back to it. Not because of the results, but because of the values that were palpable in our collaboration.
Those words have stayed with me.
I find that I think back to my first work experience in exactly the same way. Not because everything was perfect, but because there was a shared understanding of how we wanted to collaborate. Values lived in daily choices: who was heard, how differences were handled, and how expertise was given a place.
Completely different experiences
Later, in other organisations, I noticed how great the difference can be:
'the expert who remains silent'
A senior employee repeatedly raises substantive objections to an important decision. The responsible manager is formally authorised but lacks in-depth knowledge of the subject. Instead of engaging in dialogue, the feedback is minimised. Over time, the expert stops speaking. The decision is made. Months later, the risks prove to be real.
Here, it is not a lack of engagement, but insecurity: those who notice that expertise is not valued protect themselves by becoming silent.
'unnecessarily seeking external expertise'
A manager feels uncomfortable with not knowing. That feeling is experienced as a threat to his/her role or authority. Instead of sharing that uncertainty with the team, the manager seeks external expertise — not as a supplement, but as a replacement for internal knowledge.
External consultants feel more neutral and safe: they do not threaten the internal power dynamics. Meanwhile, internal experts feel overlooked and reduced to mere executors.
As soon as decision-making power and expertise do not align, tension arises. Not knowing becomes uncomfortable. Instead of collaboration, control follows. Internal expertise falls silent, while external certainty is sought. This behaviour rarely stems from ego or bad intentions. It does touch on a deeply rooted image: a leader is expected to have answers and to make decisions.
'the hero in times of crisis'
Ironically, that same internal expertise is indeed called upon when things really go wrong. When the external solution does not have the desired effect and the pressure increases, the internal expert is still brought in. Suddenly, there is attention, trust, and space. The crisis is resolved. But unfortunately, afterwards, one returns to the old pattern.
The implicit message remains the same: your expertise is welcome when things go wrong, not when direction is needed.
What is missing here are not competencies, but consistently lived values.
However it can be
My belief in values that guide how decisions are truly made is strong. Not as a reaction against organisations, but as a choice for a different way of working.
Values are, in other words, not a luxury, but a prerequisite for sustainable collaboration. That leaders do not need to know everything, but must have the courage to bring expertise close and acknowledge it. Both when it is exciting and when it is not.
In organisations where values provide direction:
• internal expertise is structurally utilised, not just in emergencies
• dissent is felt as involvement
• leaders dare to say:“I don’t know this.”
That is where collaborations are formed that stick - not because they are perfect, but because they are right.
Why this matters
People do not remember their work because of structures or targets, but because of the feeling that their contribution mattered. It is precisely that which needs to be captured or gauged, because it is that which motivates people and they truly carry with them throughout their careers.
Reflection question
Which values do you miss or appreciate today in how decisions are made in your work environment?
That answer is often the beginning of change.