## Notes from 05 February 2026 [[2026-02-04|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2026-02-06|Next note →]] # Baden-Württemberg's new leadership principles ## What happened On [3 February 2026](https://www.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/service/alle-meldungen/meldung/pid/bericht-aus-dem-kabinett-vom-3-februar-2026), the Baden-Württemberg state cabinet (Ministerrat) formally adopted new, binding leadership principles ("[Grundsätze zur Führung](https://www.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/m-stm/intern/dateien/Verwaltungsmodernisierung/260203_Grundsaetze_Fuehrung_Landesverwaltung_BW.pdf)") for the Land administration. The document applies to approximately 4,000 senior officials (excluding police, universities, teaching staff, and judiciary) and is positioned as the foundation for a standardized leadership management system across ministries. This comes as part of Baden-Württemberg's broader administrative modernization push, following the establishment of the Entlastungsallianz (bureaucracy reduction alliance) and a newly created state-based Normenkontrollrat (regulatory control council). The leadership principles are clearly meant to operationalize reform through behavior change. ## What's good about it **It's explicit, binding, and politically backed.** Having a single, public, cabinet-endorsed leadership standard (rather than implicit norms or fragmented ministry-level guidance) is already an upgrade in the German context. The cabinet decision gives it credibility and increases the likelihood that ministries treat it as more than soft guidance. The clear scope (4,000 leaders, specific exclusions) reduces ambiguity about who is bound by it. ## The problem The document bundles normative principles, operational rules, process doctrine and HR policy into a single package: - **Cultural aspirations**: empathy, trust, learning from mistakes, "agile leadership" - **Coordination rules**: how to resolve internal legal disputes ("one voice" doctrine), subsidiarity principles - **Process/digital doctrine**: continuous improvement, once-only principle, digitization-first mindset - **HR policy standards**: selection criteria emphasizing soft skills, mandatory training modules every 2-3 years **This conflation undermines both culture change and operational clarity**. When you tell leaders "be empathetic and foster psychological safety" in the same document that says "the agency head decides internal legal disputes", you're treating internalization (which requires coaching, modeling and repeated reinforcement) and enforcement (which requires clear authority and sanctions) as equivalent mechanisms. They're not. The result is a document that reads like a wishlist and not a coherent instrument. More specifically: mixing _aspirational values_ with _procedural rules_ creates confusion about what compliance means. Can a ministry claim it's following the principles if it runs the mandatory trainings but leaders still operate in classic hierarchical mode? The document doesn't distinguish between "this is how we expect you to behave" and "this is how decisions will be structured". ## What is missing? The cabinet report frames the document as a "compass" and "guiding standard" for continuous training, but provides no detail (for now) on the accountability and measurement system that would make it consequential. What's not there: - **Monitoring**: Will there be annual reporting? Public dashboards? Compliance audits? Who reviews whether ministries are actually implementing these principles? - **Measurement**: Will Baden-Württemberg deploy: - Staff climate surveys measuring leadership behavior? - 360-degree feedback with results visible to HR? - Behavioral indicators tied to the principles? - Case sampling of decision-making processes? - User satisfaction signals from businesses and citizens? - **HR integration**: How exactly will selection change? Will the soft-skills criteria become mandatory scoring dimensions in promotion panels? Is training completion tied to eligibility for advancement? What happens to leaders who complete the modules but demonstrably violate the principles? - **Governance**: Who owns implementation? A cross-ministry steering group? Individual ministry HR units? The [Führungsakademie](https://www.diefuehrungsakademie.de/)? What happens when senior officials' behavior contradicts the principles? Is there any escalation mechanism or consequence? ## Why implementation matters Without robust measurement and accountability, the likely outcome is **compliance theater**: ministries run the mandatory trainings, tick the boxes, but actual leadership behavior doesn't shift because there's no reputational or career consequence for ignoring the principles. This is especially risky given the document's cultural ambitions. Principles like "positive error culture" and "courage to make independent decisions" require sustained organizational work — not just training modules, but changes to performance management, promotion criteria and visible modeling by top leadership. Conversely. if Baden-Württemberg follows up with public reporting on leadership climate, makes survey results visible, ties the principles to actual promotion decisions, and creates accountability when senior officials violate them, this could become such an interesting governance reform. The principles themselves are reasonable; the question is whether the state has the institutional will to make it happen.