Haniel Lecture 09 2010 E.pdf - Haniel Stiftung

Haniel Lecture
Live to work or work to live?

Live to work or work to live?
9th Haniel Lecture
Duisburg, November 4, 2010
This publication of the 9th Haniel Lecture is published in German and English.

6
10
20
24
25
26
Welcoming address
Franz M. Haniel
Live to work or work to live?
Ronald Heifetz
Friedrich Merz
About the speakers
About the moderator
Participants

6
Welcoming address
Franz M. Haniel
Dear Ronald Heifetz, Mr Merz, ladies and gentlemen,
In view of tonight’s topic, I should say that I am pleased that your worklife
balance has allowed you to be here with us this evening. Those of
you who have attended a Haniel Lecture before will be familiar with
our aims. The Haniel Lectures address issues and challenges brought
about by social change and try to fi nd answers by approaching these
issues from an entrepreneurial and political perspective, as well as
from the European and North American perspective.
The title of this year’s Haniel Lecture is “Live to work or work to live?”.
The American poet Robert Frost once said, “By working faithfully
eight hours a day, you may eventually get to be a boss and work
twelve hours a day”. I would like to stress right from the outset that
work and life should not be seen as two separate and irreconcilable
worlds. Work is not the mandatory part of our existence and it is
equally true that real life does not only take place outside of the
workplace. It is up to you to decide for yourselves whether tonight
for example is work, life or hopefully a bit of both for you.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is the general consensus that, for some
time now, the world of work has been caught in the midst of a fundamental
process of change. The status quo of modern working
society is characterised by many diff erent confl icts. Firstly, employment
biographies have changed. Life-long service in one company is
being replaced by multiple changes of employer, industry and place
of work over the course of a person’s career. No form of education
can guarantee life-long employment. Permanent jobs are giving way
to temporary forms of employment. This development has been
accompanied by life-long learning, the constant need to change our
plans, the fear of not making progress in our jobs due to the brevity
of the deployment period and the dissolution of borders between
work and family life. In the future, no company will be able to aff ord
to ignore the potential confl ict between work and family life.
Secondly, work-life balance is so much more than just a modern
term for equal opportunities for men and women in the workplace.
There is more to it that laundry services and wellbeing. It is about
a changing system of values that increasingly places emphasis on
factors such as happiness and fulfi lment. It is about a fun da mental
change in perspective, namely the recognition that employees’
private lives should be taken into consideration to a greater extent
in the interest of the company. And this should benefi t women
primarily to make it easier for them to assume executive positions.
Thirdly, the fi nancial and economic crisis that is now behind us has
stepped up competition and hence put even more pressure on the
ability of companies and leaders to change and adapt; and this
trend is here to stay. We live in times of non-linear developments.
Methods that used to be successful in the past may no longer be
successful in the future. And this means that the pressure on individuals
is greater than ever before.
In his book, On the Shortness of Life, the Roman philosopher and
politician Seneca says, “There is nothing the busy man is less busied
with than living; there is nothing harder to learn”. The healthy
identity of a person is based on achieving a certain harmony
between work, relationship and family, body and health, social
relationships, societal involvement and systems of meaning. Not
all of these elements must be of equal importance in all stages of
life, but over time a harmonious balance should be found between
them. Companies need to support their employees not only to
achieve good results in their jobs but also in their private lives.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you follow these lines of thought then
you will see that they throw up a number of new challenges, not
only for the individual but also for companies and company management,
socio-political conditions and thereby policymakers.

“Work-life balance is so much more than just a modern term for equal opportunities
for men and women in the workplace. It is the recognition that employees’
private lives should be taken into consideration to a greater extent in the interest
of the company.”
For the individual, the question reads: how do I reconcile my
career, which is accompanied by many organisational and location
changes requiring a lot of fl exibility and life-long learning, with my
private and family life? For company management, these changes
mean that they have to change the way they treat employees
and successfully compete with other companies to hire increasingly
mobile and fl exible employees. And this results in a new set
of circumstances for social policymakers which are far removed
from the old employment biographies and which require new and
unconventional answers.
Ladies and gentlemen, you are all familiar with news headlines
such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung article published on
8 March 2010 claiming that one in nine Germans suff er from burnout
syndrome. As we all know, burnout is a state of physical, mental
and spiritual exhaustion that cannot be compensated for by normal
recovery periods. There are many examples that show how work,
especially when it is challenging and fun, can actually provide direction
to life and take hold of it; at times perhaps a little too much.
However, let us not forget that, until the eve of the 20th century,
imperturbable calm and not a packed agenda served as evidence
of the aristocratic elite. It was only in the wake of explosive industrial
growth in the 1870s when entrepreneurship and management
as we understand them today suddenly evolved and our daily lives
became characterised by an ostentatiously hectic pace.
Entrepreneurs are pacesetters and this is a good thing. But seemingly
the requirements on leaders in business and society are
becoming greater. In times of mounting competitive pressure in
the global context, there are new opportunities for entrepreneurial
actions, but these times also usher in more competition, pressure
and risk. But a hectic pace does not help when we are faced with
keeping sight of the big picture, mastering diffi cult challenges and
making smart decisions. We need to be able to shut off , create some
distance and strike the right balance in our private lives.
7

8 | Franz M. Haniel
“And this results in a new set of circumstances for social policymakers which
are far removed from the old employment biographies and which require
new and unconventional answers.”
It is hardly surprising how much emphasis is currently being placed
on the topic of work-life balance. How do we juggle our working
and private lives so that the challenges and also the pleasure
derived from work do not come at the expense of our private lives,
family and friends or jeopardise our health? Have things really
gone that far that we now need a “survival guide for leaders” to
quote the title of an article written by Ronald Heifetz in the Harvard
Business Review?
Ladies and gentlemen, the conditions are the way they are and we
simply have to face up to these challenges on an individual level,
but also on an entrepreneurial and socio-political level. Only then
can we grow and ensure that our society maintains and enhances
its standard of living. But how do companies and company management
actually cope with this change? How can policymakers
respond to this change, manage and support it? I am very pleased
to pass these important and challenging questions on to our
renowned guests, who I would like to welcome to the podium.
I would like to extend a warm welcome to Ron Heifetz and Friedrich
Merz, who are here as speakers, panellists and sources of inspiration,
and also Roger de Weck who will act as moderator.
Ron Heifetz is one of the most renowned leadership researchers in
the world. He is the King Hussein bin Talal Senior Lecturer in Public
Leadership and founder of the Center for Public Leadership at the
Harvard Kennedy School of Government. His leadership course has
become an integral part of the McCloy programme sponsored by
the Haniel Foundation, which I am delighted about. Furthermore,
his consulting expertise in issues such as leadership and change in
business, politics and non-profi t organisations is in high demand
around the globe. He has published a number of standard volumes
which have been translated into many languages and written a
number of widely quoted articles and books such as “Leadership
without Easy Answers”, “The Practice of Adaptive Leadership
and Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive through the Dangers of
Leading”. The subtitle of the last book is particularly interesting,
because he, as an ex-graduate of the Harvard Medical School, is
also a doctor. He has also learnt to play the cello and is known to
be somewhat of a virtuoso.

As our second speaker at this year’s Haniel Lecture, I would like to
welcome Friedrich Merz. He will be representing the view from this
side of the Atlantic and examining things from a socio-political
perspective this evening. He studied jurisprudence and political science
in Bonn and Marburg and then worked as a judge, and later as
a lawyer. In 1989, he was elected a member of the European Parliament
and was a member of the Bundestag from 1994 to 2009. He
also held the chair of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group.
“But a hectic pace does not help when we are faced with keeping sight of
the big picture, mastering diffi cult challenges and making smart decisions.
We need to be able to shut off , create some distance and strike the right
balance in our private lives.“
He was known as an equally sharp-witted and sharp-tongued
head and analyst of his party and is one of the most well-known
politicians in this country. His books have caused a sensation and
have been the source of much debate. “Only Those Who Change
Will Survive” remained on the bestseller list for months. Interestingly,
in 2008, in the midst of the fi nancial crisis he wrote “Venturing
More Capitalism: Ways to a Just Society”. At the beginning
of January 2010, he was appointed to the Supervisory Board of
HSBC Trinkaus as successor to the late Otto Graf Lambsdorff . Since
June 2010, he has additionally held power of attorney for the sale
of WestLB. And he recently published a book called What Needs
to Be Done Now: Germany 2.0 together with Wolfgang Clement.
Our moderator this evening is Roger de Weck. He is still, I have to
say, a freelance journalist. After studying economics at the University
of St. Gallen, he was editor in chief of the Swiss Tagesanzeiger
from 1992 to 1997, and of ZEIT magazine from 1997 to 2001. Since
2001, he has been the presenter of Sternstunden Philosophie (magic
moment philosophy), a Swiss TV programme. He is President of the
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in
Geneva and lectures at the College of Europe in Bruges and Warsaw.
He is a freelance journalist, at least for the time being, but
this is set to change at the beginning of 2011 when he is appointed
Director General of the Swiss Radio and Broadcasting Society.
Ladies and gentlemen, once again, thank you very much for coming.
I look forward to an entertaining and eventful evening fi lled
with answers!
9

10
Live to work or work to live?
Ronald Heifetz
It is an honor and so meaningful for me to be with you tonight.
Meaningful in part because my mother was born and grew up very
close to here in a little town called Hattingen. She had been back
once since 1938 when she left. I took her to visit Hattingen in 1999,
and it was a very sweet experience. So coming here now to share
with you my work is for me a form of coming home. She was always
and she still is at 85-years-old enormously proud of her roots.
Tonight I would like to share with you a few of the lessons that
I have had the chance to learn from working both with people
at the entry level of professional life and with people who have
already achieved the highest offi ces in countries and companies,
as well as in non-profi ts, universities, and religious organizations.
I have had the wonderful opportunity to listen to many diff erent
people’s stories in an eff ort to help them take corrective action in
their own practices of leadership, so that they can both do good
work and stay alive. Doing good work in leadership and staying
alive are sometimes in confl ict because leadership is not always
a safe enterprise. If leadership meant that you were in the business
of routinely giving people good news, it would be an easy
job, but in the practice of leadership we are frequently engaged
in the work of mobilizing people to face trade-off s, to trade off
short-term losses for potential medium-term and long-term gain.
As Franz M. Haniel described to me so wonderfully, for companies
this can mean mobilizing people to discern what to start doing
that is new, as well as what to stop doing. These losses are diffi cult
for people, always diffi cult. And the losses generate various forms
of resistance to change.
I am sure many of you know the common saying, “people resist
change,” but this saying is not entirely true. People do not resist
change when they know it is a good thing. In countries around the
world that hold lotteries to raise public funds, people do not give
back winning lottery tickets; winners do not say, “I refuse to change
my life, please do not give me that money.” People love change
when they are sure it is a good bet. People do not resist change
per se; people resist the losses that can accompany change. There
are many diff erent kinds of losses: loss of competence, loss of loyalty,
as well as direct losses of wealth, status, power, or relevance.
When in the act of leadership you challenge people to take these
losses on behalf of potential gains, you take risks, because one
way people will resist the challenge you represent to them is to
try to neutralize you. Sometimes the neutralization can take very
sophisticated forms, like promotion. Some people are promoted as
a way of getting them out of the way. And sometimes the forms
are much more direct: character assassination, direct attack, and
in the world in which I work, in politics, sometimes people risk
physical assassination.
However, the dangers are not just external, in the sense that you
might lose your job or your status. The risks are also internal, in our
own lives. The topic tonight asks us to refl ect on some of these personal
forms of danger. I would like to share a few ideas this evening
that I have learned from the many diff erent stories of people I have
known over these 28 years of teaching and consulting, lessons on
managing and anchoring yourself. Tonight’s discussion is framed
by the question: how do we fi nd the right balance between work
and life? Let me begin by refl ecting for a moment on the metaphor
of balance. Balance suggests that you are working with two different
ledgers, like an accountant, and then are trying to fi nd the
right balance. That is a useful image, but it has limitations if we
think of balance as a static state of being.

“So if we think of life as a composition, then we can give ourselves the freedom
to make mistakes every day, to get the balance wrong, but then with
the liberty to take corrective action.”
Perhaps in life we never achieve a static balance, nor should we in
the sense that we can go to sleep in the house of our life because
the thermostat is properly set and the temperature will remain
constant within a narrow range. I think both life and leadership
is a dynamic, improvisational art. There will be key overarching
themes and orienting values that will guide your life, but the dayto-day,
month-to-month and year-to-year path takes twists and
turns of discovery and surprise. One has to keep responding to the
current realities, almost daily, to fi gure out the best balance for
today. In that sense, perhaps we need a more inclusive metaphor.
What does it mean to compose a life? What does it mean to stop
and ask oneself, what is all of this about anyway? The kinds of
questions that are frequently reserved for moments in church, or
temple, or synagogue, or in a park, or in a room meditating: What
is all of this about? What do I want of my life? Life then becomes
akin to art that you compose, art that incorporates all sorts of
dynamic tensions for which the overarching coherence is known,
lost, and rediscovered repeatedly over a lifetime.
Your German predecessors invented the arts of harmony in music.
As in any great composition, we know in music that harmony is
not consonance. If a piece of music were composed solely of consonance,
it would resemble Gregorian chant. It would have a timeless
but static quality. All music since Gregorian chant employs
harmony. And harmony is the art and craft of weaving together
consonance with dissonance. The conscious deliberate employment
of dissonance generates drama and movement in music, the
seventh chord that resolves into the tonic. So if we think of life as
a composition, then we can give ourselves the freedom to make
mistakes every day, to get the balance wrong, but then with the
liberty to take corrective action. We can resolve dissonance as part
of life, not contrary to life.
11

12 | Ronald Heifetz
To help refl ect on the dissonances of daily life and to resolve them, I
use the metaphor of the balcony. We all tend to get swept up in the
action of daily life. When we are dancing to music and the music
is beating strongly, we tend only to see the people with whom we
are dancing, and at best we are carried away on the dance fl oor by
the music. But it is also useful to step back and get on the balcony
to observe the larger patterns of action that are taking place on the
dance fl oor. In the daily practice of leadership, it becomes essential
to staying alive that people can step back in the midst of action and
refl ect on a key set of diagnostic questions to assess the dynamics,
key themes, and sources of confl ict in the larger system of organizational
expectations, norms, politics and trends.
One needs to be able to move from action to refl ection, back to
action, back to refl ection, over and over again every day. One needs
to get swept up in the action, dancing on the dance fl oor, because
that is where work and life take place, but then one also needs
to be able to step back and get up to the balcony of refl ection.
At least in one’s own imagination, even in the middle of a meeting,
one needs to push one’s chair back an inch or two and ask
oneself, “What really is happening in this meeting? I thought this
was going to be easy and all of a sudden it has become diffi cult,
confl ictive, and confusing. What did I miss, what is the underlying
loyalty or loss, how am I stepping on somebody’s foot in ways that
I had not anticipated, and therefore, what kind of corrective action
do I need to take the next day?” And then after fi nding at least
approximate answers to those questions, you can get back onto
the dance fl oor of action and identify or name the particular cost
that you are asking people to sustain.
One needs to be able to step back and ask oneself, “What is all of
this about for me? Am I the right person to be deployed at this
moment? Perhaps somebody else should be deployed, perhaps I
need to let go of certain prerogatives that naturally come with my
authority and delegate them to other people who may be better
situated to work the issue, perhaps because of their informal network
of relationships, or because they bring a particular personality
and skill set. Perhaps I should give the responsibility to other
people so that I am not leading alone.”
But at the personal level, too, it is important to be able to step back
and get on the balcony, and to ask oneself, what I am doing here,
what is this all about? To re-anchor oneself in the orienting values
and the key sets of commitments that can guide a life through all
the improvisations of diff erent kinds of family events, and professional
events, and political events.
In our day and age where so much is moving so fast, in a world
of increasing global interdependency where nobody is in complete
control anymore of anything, it is common for people to feel
swept up or even swept away. In this era of complexity, as in other
eras of anxiety in the past, there is a strong tendency of people
to look to a singular authority to lead the way. But it is dangerous
to lead alone. The idea of a leader as the lone warrior, the single
person, is foolhardy; it is heroic but suicidal. Leadership today, for
others and for yourself, requires partners.
And so that is the second practical idea. You cannot lead alone.
To stay alive, to take care of yourself, you need people who will
straighten you out, people who will pull you by the collar up to the
balcony and ask you some key questions: “Wait a second, what are
you doing here? Wait a second, you have gotten seduced again.
Wait a second, you are not that important. Wait a second, here is a
blind spot – you are not listening to this person just because they
are getting so angry again, but there is something they are saying
you need to identify.”
“In the daily practice of leadership, it becomes essential to staying alive that
people can step back in the midst of action to assess the dynamics, key themes,
and sources of confl ict in the larger system.”

One of the common mistakes in leadership is that people spend
too much time with their friends and not enough time with their
enemies. It is diffi cult to make appointments with the people who
annoy you. But the people who annoy you are really the people
whom you need to understand best – because those people are
in opposition primarily because they have the most to lose. Allies
are inexpensive. Allies don’t have much to lose. That is why it is
easy for them to be allies. But the people who are in opposition
have a lot to lose and so they are going to fi ght hard. And in that
sense, in order to mobilize them to absorb those losses, and as you
develop a strategy over time that engages them in considering
those losses, you have to know with very fi ne fi ngertips the nature
of their stakes and loyalties and interests, the history that you may
be trampling upon unknowingly, when you ask them to change
this or that. I am sure that Franz M. Haniel, when he decides in the
supervisory board what businesses to stay in and what businesses
to let go, has to think about the loyalties that people have to that
business, and to one another. And in the pacing of that change,
the naming of that change process, one must develop a narrative
that honors and refl ects an intimate understanding of the nature
of those loyalties and losses. When you have partners, allies and
confi dants, people who can pull you to the balcony, they can help
you see the larger system. Who are you leaving out of the process?
With whom are you spending too much time and with whom are
you spending too little time?
“One of the common mistakes in leadership
is that people spend too much time
with their friends and not enough time
with their enemies.”
Partners come in two diff erent forms. There are allies and there
are confi dants. Both are critical in professional life. The allies are
people with whom you might be very close friends, your children
might spend a lot of time together; the diff erence is not friendship.
The diff erence between an ally and a confi dant is the presence of
competing loyalties. The ally has competing loyalties; the confi -
dant does not. Allies represent particular organizations, functions,
divisions, or in politics, parties or factions, in which they cannot
always be true to you across the boundary. They also have to be
true to their own constituency, their own people. And therefore,
an ally cannot always be the person to whom you share everything
in your heart, because they can’t always be true to you. You place
them in a double-bind if you tell them things that force them to
choose between you and their other loyalties.
13

14 | Ronald Heifetz
Consequently, we also need confi dants. We need people who
don’t actually care about our professional agenda. They really care
mostly about us. And therefore, they can help us recalibrate what
we are doing. They can be a place where we can put everything
in our hearts on the table, without it being organized, without it
sounding reasonable, where we can be as irrational as sometimes
we feel, because there are days like that. (There is an old song from
my era growing up in California “Mama said there will be days like
that”.) And there are days like that. And so we need confi dants;
usually, they are outside of the organization. They are friends, they
are family, or they may be old colleagues with whom we no longer
have any kind of competing set of interests, people with whom we
can then talk freely.
The third idea, distinguishing role and self, is a very important one,
and this is actually a very big idea. I spend two weeks every January
giving an intensive course for people at mid-career at Harvard
Kennedy School on this one idea – the importance of distinguishing
one’s role from oneself. We tend to confuse our professional
roles with who we are as human beings, and because of that confusion,
our own self-esteem ends up being hostage to the vicissitudes
of the professional roles that we inhabit. If all of a sudden
something happens in the United States’ stock market and, even
though you are 4,000 miles away, things go quickly downhill in
the midst of a crisis, it is pretty important to remember that the
import of this event is not personal. This awareness is diffi cult to
maintain because the impact of the event feels personal, and even
more so when you are the authority fi gure, the person in charge,
because all eyes look to you to resolve the problem. Very quickly
for most of you who have grown up identifying yourself as the
go-to person, as the responsible problem-solving person, you can
begin to take people’s problems off their shoulders and take personally
their pains, losses and fears. It is indeed your job to provide
leadership to manage the transitional and adaptive change
demanded by the crisis, and to manage their fears and pains, but
you also have to manage your own. Sometimes, people take personally
the anger that is directed toward them from frustrated
employees, colleagues, and constituents, and then allow themselves
to be burdened in an unhealthy way, unhealthy personally
and unhealthy professionally.
Partners, allies and confi dants, can help you distinguish your role
from yourself. I’ve had the pleasure of lunch on two occasions
with King Abdullah of Jordan, a very talented man. After one of
those lunches, there was an open forum at our school and a South
Ameri can student asked the King a question, “Where we live we
don’t have kings. So I am dying to know, what is it like to be a
king?” And King Abdullah was gracious and wonderfully honest.
He said, I did not expect to be the king. My uncle was supposed
to be the king, but before my father died, King Hussein decided
I should be the king. Well, perhaps my father was preparing me
because he said to me repeatedly while raising me: My son, the
moment you begin to believe that you are a king, you are in trouble.”
King Hussein became king when he was a teenage boy.
“We tend to confuse our professional roles with who we are as human
beings, and because of that confusion, our own self-esteem ends up being
hostage to the vicissitudes of the professional roles that we inhabit.”
He had been king nearly his whole life, but he knew that when
people kissed his hand, they were not kissing him, they were kissing
king. And at the other extreme, when people were shooting
bullets at him, they were not actually shooting at him; they were
shooting at the king.
I have had the opportunity on many occasions to sit with Dalia
Rabin, Yitzhak Rabin’s daughter, a wonderful person and fi ne politician
in her own right. However painful, she understands that her
father’s assassination was not personal. Of course, in a way it was
the most profoundly personal act, to kill her father, but in another
way it was not personal at all. The man who killed Yitzhak Rabin
wanted to silence a decisive and powerful voice that promoted
seemingly intolerable losses, a perspective that challenged the
loyalties many Israeli settlers were carrying from their ancestors
of 2,000 years – loyalty to the love of people who gave them the
belief that they should live on those ancient stones. So, one stays
alive in leading by using partners to help you distinguish your role
from yourself. I fi rst learned this as a father. When I started having
children, one of my close friends said to me, “You will really know
you have succeeded as a father when your child is disrespectful
and you don’t take it personally … and it will take you two children
to fi gure it out!” And that is so true. I have two children, now studying
in the university, a boy and a girl.

When I was doing my best as a father years ago, I did not take it
personally when my children acted badly. I corrected the behavior,
“You cannot talk to me that way,” but I stayed calm. And then
I would begin to listen. After correcting the immediate behavior
my job was to listen. I would ask myself, “What is the problem
with this child? Why is he acting this way, or she?” And usually it
would take about two days before I would discover the problem.
The story would come out at some unexpected moment, “I did
badly on an exam in school. I had a fi ght with my close friend. Or,
I dropped the ball on the playing fi eld.” And then, because I had
stayed in a diagnostic mode, a listening mode, I was able to work
the problem – to help the child study well, or repair the relationship
with a friend, or get back onto the playing fi eld.
But what happened when I was at my worst? These were not my
proudest moments. On my bad days I would take my children’s
disrespect personally. I would be so tired from work that I would
start yelling in my mind, fi rst internally, “How can you treat me
that way? Don’t you know how much I do for you? I don’t know
any father who picks his children up from school every day and
still makes the kind of money I make!” And then after yelling inside
my imagination, the yelling began to leak out, and I started to yell
out loud. And after a minute or so of yelling out loud, I felt so badly
to be losing my temper that I would yell even harder at the child,
“Why are you making me lose my temper? Don’t you know how I
hate losing my temper? Why are you provoking me this way!” as if
the child was responsible for my temper. And then I would feel so
terribly that I would go to my study and I would take medication.
Everybody has their form of medication. My form of medication
is e-mail. I always have 3,000 unanswered e-mails. So whenever I
needed to, I could just numb myself answering e-mail. By the time
I was ready to rejoin my family, two days later, I never found out
the core problem, because when I took it personally, my attention
moved from the problem to myself.
“You stay alive in leading by using
partners to help you distinguish your
role from yourself.”
When you confuse role with self, you become the problem. Your
defensive and off ensive behavior now substitutes for the real
problem. From a diagnostic point of view, it is critical to know that
what comes at you, sometimes the adoration and sometimes the
hate at the two extremes, is less personal than you think.
But the second reason why it is so important to distinguish your
role from yourself, and this is a little closer to the heart of tonight’s
theme, is to remember who you are. Sometimes when we begin to
believe that we are the role – I am a doctor, I am a professor, I am
a mayor, I am an executive, I am a founder – we forget all of the
richness of ourselves as human beings. You begin to over-identify
with that one role. What happens then when you lose that role?
(And at some point we all lose that role.) Oh, yes, you could say that
you are still a doctor, but you do not practice anymore. So what do
you do? We all know a lot of people who retire or lose their job and
who then become constricted in their lives and expression. They
become narrow because they cannot fi nd themselves anymore
and they cannot make meaning in their life except through that
long-held role, the vehicle they had used to express themselves for
much of their lifetime. They lose the plasticity, the fl exibility that
they once had when they were like the young people in whom you
now invest, for whom there are so many diff erent roles to consider.
And even at the age of 60 or 70 or 80 or 90, my father’s age, there
are so many diff erent roles that one can play as vehicles for making
meaning in life, to continue composing a life that has meaning,
apart from the authoritative expertise that perhaps one had developed
through one role over one segment of a lifetime.
15

16 | Ronald Heifetz
Fourth, one stays alive by listening. In leadership, when people are
neutralized prematurely in political life, they often get taken down
with their mouths open! People usually get taken out of action in
organizations and in politics because they spend too much time
talking and not enough time listening. It is the listening that enables
you to identify the complexity of the system that you are engaging,
to identify the key parties and the potential losses, new competencies
and adjustments you are asking people to make. Only by listening,
especially to the voices that most annoy you, can you then
develop a strategy to bring people and mobilize people to understand
the nature of the changes surrounding them in this world.
We have just seen two days ago in the United States an election
in which the people did not understand the pace at which change
was possible. People in the US expected economic results faster
than they could be accomplished. And our new President made
the classic mistake of promising more than he could deliver, setting
and reinforcing unrealistic expectations that have now generated
a strong backlash by a frightened American public.
But you also should listen to yourself. Listening to yourself requires
anchors and practices. Here are four categories of anchors: The
fi rst anchor is a sanctuary. I am not recommending any particular
sanctuary. It may be a church or another religious institution.
But it also could be a trail in the woods or along a river. It could
be a friend’s kitchen table where you have tea. It could be a room
in your house where you sit quietly and read. It could be a coff ee
shop, a gym, yoga class, or meditation group. The key thing is that
you have a sanctuary. You cannot possibly lead in the complexity
and speed of current professional life without having anchors
that can pull you out of your professional life to hear yourself think
again. These are not expendable luxuries. But many times people
treat them as if they were luxuries. They say, “I don’t have time
to have lunch or breakfast with that friend,” and they cancel the
lunch or they cancel the breakfast. These anchors are as critical to
professional life as a winter coat is critical to your survival if you
move to the North Country or to Boston. These are not luxuries.
We need sanctuaries, and we need to protect them.
“When we begin to believe that we are the role – I am a doctor, I am a professor,
I am a mayor, I am an executive, I am a founder – we forget all of the
richness of ourselves as human beings.”

The second category of anchor, as I have said, is partners. We need
people whom we can trust to pull us off the playing fi eld when we
are caught up in the action. We need allies that can help us regularly
debrief the processes of change and take corrective action in
the ongoing improvisational practice of leadership. And we need
confi dants to help us distinguish self from role – to maintain perspective
and be reminded of our humanity.
A third kind of anchor lies in various routine practices. Some of the
practices are physical, like routine exercise. Some of the practices
might be spiritual, like meditation or prayer. Some of the practices
might be writing in a journal, or artistic like playing music or
painting. And they may not serve any kind of professional function
except to help you in a reliable way to restore you to yourself, to
be reminded that who you are as a human being is more than the
role that you play, particularly when that role can be consuming.
A fi nal source of anchoring lies in the multiple roles through which
we fi nd meaning in life: the role of father, the role of mother, sister,
volunteer, member of a community. Each role becomes an anchor
against being swept away by the other roles. You deploy yourself,
you manage and compose a life, by creating a network of anchoring
roles, each of which is a set of role obligations, each of which
pulls at you at that kind of moment when you might say, “I don’t
have time for this right now,” although you then grudgingly go
along and after you are there, you are grateful.
I experienced this, because when my children were young, their
mother was fi nishing her Ph.D. and I began to take them and
pick them up from school every day. I found this very hard to do
because, of course, I was a bit too self-important and had “important
obligations” in my work making it diffi cult to leave at 3 o’clock
in the afternoon. Moreover, I would get to their school and would
have to wait in a long line of cars to pick up my children, and I felt
impatient. To pass the time, I used to count how many other men
were waiting for their children. In the early years, when my children
were in fi rst and second grade, one out of thirty cars had
another man driving. So you can imagine how good I felt in my role
as a man! What was I doing here? I would have my cell phone and
a dictating machine with me to try to maximize every moment,
until I fi nally would get to the front of the line.
I would then be pulled out of my preoccupations by seeing the little
faces of my children. In the early years, it was a slow transition.
I would tell them, “Okay, Anni, you get into the car fi rst, and
David, you get in second,” because of course they have their seats.
But they would never listen to me. They would just throw their
bags in, all in chaos, and get into the car, and then out would come
stories, stories that I had never heard before, because I discovered
they only tell the spontaneous version of their stories once and
they tell it to whoever gets there fi rst. Countless nannies are getting
all of the good stories today! And I discovered over time that
this was so rich. I was learning what it meant to do what mothers
have traditionally done, and what a blessing it was for me. Yes, it
was a challenge to my role as a man and professional with important
phone calls left unreturned, projects and money left on the
table. Indeed, as the years passed and I became more successful,
people were off ering me large fees, or they would say, “We can’t
pay you, but we really need you.” That was even harder to refuse.
But all of that had to be left unfi nished because I had to go and
pick up my children. But with them, in the daily routines of piano
and violin lessons, karate and dance lessons, play dates and afterschool
snacks, I felt anchored in a new world of meaning. The two
worlds of meaning, work and family, could not be compared. You
cannot put them on the same balance sheet. They are each valuable
beyond measure. The value for me professionally in helping
people lead more eff ectively in their community and business, and
in being a father and helping raise and love these children, is each
invaluable. The two need each other.
“The two worlds of meaning, work
and family, could not be compared.
You cannot put them on the same
balance sheet.”
17

18 | Ronald Heifetz
Without having multiple role anchors it would be easy for me to be
swept away in what I came to call my own “zone of insatiability,”
that vulnerability in me where, no matter what I might achieve,
it was not enough. I risked creating my own internal hell by being
unsatisfi ed with whatever I had achieved. This is not a prescription
for happiness. To be pulled out of that whirlpool of insatiability, I
found that I needed another role, another anchor of meaning. And
in that sense my children became that anchor. (Now they are away
at a university, and I am lost again!)
In closing my remarks for this evening, I want to comment on the
idea of measurement. I think we all want to be purposeful human
beings. People want to do meaningful work, but people often
become confused because we live in a world of measurement; and
because we measure everything, we begin to buy into the myth of
measurement. We begin to believe that measurement captures all
truths, rather than serve simply as a device. Of course, measurement
can be profoundly useful. In medicine we save lives every
day because we can measure things like blood chemistries, cardiac
rate, and oxygenation of the blood. You cannot run a business or
any kind of enterprise without measuring as many parameters as
possible to determine relative health, profi tability, and success.
But measurement cannot capture the essential truths. I do not
believe, for example, that you can measure the love that you give
or the good that you do. I discovered this as a young man reading
Shakespeare at Columbia University. Juliet declares her love to
Romeo, “… the more I give to thee, the more I have …” Soon after
reading that passage, I went to visit the renowned philosopher of
science, Professor Ernst Nagel. When I asked him, “What questions
are you asking?” he said, “I am interested in the uses and limits of
measurement.” “Like Juliet,” I responded. “Exactly,” he said.
The limits of measurement came home to me many years later
when my father and mother were visiting my home in Boston during
the holiday season of Halloween. My father is a neurosurgeon.
He has invented many of the instruments that are used in brain
surgery around the world and he has saved many thousands of
lives in his career, directly and indirectly. (Indeed, one of the manufacturers
of his instruments is nearby in Solingen.) When my
father retired from medicine, he returned to a childhood hobby;
he always loved astronomy – star-gazing. He decided he would
introduce his grandchildren to the beauty of the heavens and he
bought all of the books he could fi nd on astronomy. However, he
did not like any of them. So he wrote his own book to introduce
people to the stars. He sent it off to a publisher, Cambridge University
Press, and they introduced him to a great illustrator in the
Netherlands and they published his book, called “A Walk through
the Heavens”, Cambridge University Press, 9.95 US-Dollar!

The book was published just before my parents came to visit
that Halloween season. On that particular evening, we also had
a young man, Richard, over to visit. Richard had lived in our house
as a student, and now several years later he was teaching music
in a local school. We had a very nice evening walking through the
streets with the children, and when we returned home, my parents
were still there. We all felt a warm feeling standing in the
foyer of our house, and I thought that Richard, as a teacher, might
like a copy of my father’s new astronomy book. I brought a copy
from my study, gave it to him, and when he opened it, he noticed
that the book was dedicated to all of the grandchildren by name,
including my two children. Richard then closed the book, turned to
my father, and asked my father if he could borrow a pen. My father
smiled a bit, reached into his pocket for a pen, and of course, my
father expected Richard to ask him to sign the book. But that is
not what Richard did. Richard got down on his knee, opened the
book to the dedication page, and asked my two children to sign the
book. So diagonally, in one inch scrawl, they signed the book. And
as they were signing the book, I turned and looked to my father
and thought to myself, “What is he feeling?” And I saw just the
beginning of tears in his eyes, and I realized that the value of forty
years of saving thousands of lives could not be measured against
the meaning of that moment.
I do not believe any of us, when we pass over and visit with the angels,
will be asked, “Why did you create a hundred jobs and not 120? Why
did you save 47 lives and not 62? Why did you teach 150 children to
read and not 640? Why did you stop one war and not two?”
You cannot really measure the good that you do. When we stay
alive in our heart and soul, we stay in the game of doing meaningful
work. We have to rebalance our multiple responsibilities every day
by reminding ourselves of the meaning of our labors in each of our
roles, and also celebrating the fruits of those labors. I do not think it
is enough in life only to feel a fi re in your belly, to be motivated only
by the work that still needs to be done; I think we keep our spirit
alive when we take pleasure and gratifi cation in the good work that
we have done. We need to be reminded by friends and confi dants
of the good work that we are doing. We need to be reminded of
the good we do beyond any measure. And that would be my prayer
for all of you, that you rejoice and take pleasure in the fruits of your
good work. And may the force be with you!
“Because we measure everything, we begin to buy into the myth of measurement.
We begin to believe that measurement captures all truths, rather
than serve simply as a device.”
19

20
Live to work or work to live?
Friedrich Merz

Dear Mr Haniel, ladies and gentlemen,
During the brilliant lecture by Ronald Heifetz, in which he relayed
his personal experiences, I saw numerous parallels with what I
experienced myself in America, in a professional world which was
completely alien to me until a few years ago. At my law fi rm, where
I have now been a member of the board for two years, personal
experiences from family life play a signifi cant role. And this was
an experience that was not only new to me, but that also did away
with some of my prejudices about the Americans.
Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps it also came to your attention that
there was one aspect that Ronald Heifetz did not touch upon in
his speech at all. This aspect is hugely important on this side of the
Atlantic when talking about the relationship between work and
private life; and that is the role of the state. The way to actually
organise yourself and assume responsibility for your own life at
home and at work – I think that this way of looking at things is
relatively alien to us in Germany, and dare I say in Europe as well.
I will try to address the topic “live to work or work to live” from a
personal point of view, but also from a German and European perspective.
My fi rst thesis is as follows: living and work have become
such a contradiction in terms lately. And I say this from a very personal
point of view, having grown up in a family with four children.
My mother was always at home and my father came home every
day from work to have lunch with us. Admittedly, even back then
this was not considered the norm for everyone, but in a small town
it was possible and my father had a profession that allowed him to
do that. Many of my classmates had similar experiences at home.
Today, by contrast, we are lucky if just one of the parents is home
when the children get home from school.
What is more, the mobility that our jobs require results in a situation
whereby parents become weekend commuters and families
actually live apart during the week. And the German state actually
promotes this, for example with the commuter tax rebate. I
was not entirely sure how to translate this word in English. There is
even a tax incentive for a second home, which was again acknowledged
by the Supreme Court not too long ago. So the state actually
encourages you to work as far away as possible and stay away
for as long as you possibly can. The repercussions that this has on
family cohesion are obvious and banal.
My second thesis is that globalisation, which in my view is still in its
early stages, will actually compound this trend. The lives of many
families are shaped around the careers of the parents, who have to
spend extended periods or make multiple short trips abroad. The
lack of social integration in many countries as a result is increasingly
becoming a burden for these families. They are increasingly
having to fi t their lives around the rhythm of their parents’ working
lives. At the same time, we are seeing an incredible acceleration
of the internet and new media, which is a blessing but also a
curse. He who has 3,000 unanswered e-mails in his mailbox and
is still able to get a good night’s sleep is a lucky man indeed. All of
these things are having an impact on our families.
My third thesis is that our prosperity has its downsides. Omnipresent
advertising actually triggers a consumerism in families that results
in the conviction that everyone could theoretically aff ord everything
if it was only cheap enough. Every family today therefore requires at
least two incomes. Don’t get me wrong here, ladies and gentlemen,
well-educated young women have every right to and ought well to
seek and fi nd self-fulfi lment, and not exclusively in the family. But is
this alone the motivation, or are we talking about completely diff erent
forms of self-realisation and fulfi lment at work than simply the
emotional and material needs of the family?
A chain of electrical retailers once used “penny pinching is cool” as a
slogan for one of their big advertising campaigns. The words of warning
that still ring in my ears from around my parent’s dinner table
were “we can’t aff ord it”. They are a far cry from today’s adverts.
“Penny pinching is cool” simply means look out for the bargains
and everything will be ok. I don’t want to question the legitimacy
of advertising, particularly in the discount sector, but the consumer
pressure that it creates which is not compatible with the income
budget of many households, has repercussions on the consumer
behaviour of families and puts pressure on women in particular.
I still remember a book from my student days written by two very
left-wing women. The title was: One is not enough, both is too
much. This title epitomises the whole dilemma that women are
faced with when they want to combine work and family life to any
extent. America has a much longer tradition of women pursuing
work outside of the home. And when children are on the scene,
the school system gives both parents greater freedom to pursue a
career. Our answer to this question is completely diff erent to the
American answer. In our country, it is up to the state to ensure that
this works out.
21

22 | Friedrich Merz
“We have committed our state to coshape,
co-fund and thereby enable families
to strike this work-life balance; a commitment
that seriously overtaxes this
state, from an objective point of view.”
Therefore, my fourth thesis is: we have committed our state to coshape,
co-fund and thereby enable families to strike this work-life
balance; a commitment that seriously overtaxes this state, from an
objective point of view. We are guided by gender equality aims that
not only lead to increasing state indebtedness but also to greater
social spending. We are also tempted to take away individual
responsibility from people who actually have a diff erent attitude.
This theory is not new. Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote that, “When
inequality of conditions is the common law of society, the most
marked inequalities do not strike the eye; when everything is nearly
on the same level, the slightest are marked enough to hurt it”. He
goes on to say, “Hence the desire of equality always becomes more
insatiable in proportion as equality is more complete”. The overtaxing
of our social welfare state is closely related to this fact.
This is why I maintain that throwing more money at the social
welfare state will not solve more problems, but actually create
additional problems. I would even go one step further and say that
we, the state, public households spend more money on families in
2010 than we have ever spent before. There are probably around
80 sources of funding available to families, from child benefi t
through to health provision. We have relied too heavily on transfer
payments and too little on the internal responsibility of the smallest
social unit of our country, and that is the family. In the lecture
given by Ronald Heifetz, we heard a completely diff erent basic
attitude towards the relationship between the state and society
and self-responsibility than we have ever managed to develop in
our social welfare states in Europe over decades. So, what conclusion
should be drawn?
My fi fth thesis is that simple anti-capitalism has failed in providing
answers to these questions. It has always known what it did
not want and has rightly pointed to some drawbacks and excesses
that exist. But the task of striking a new balance between the
state and its citizens still exists and, from a European perspective,
is more pressing than ever. Many of the things that Ronald Heifetz
mentioned in his lecture are transferrable to us. I will touch on
two major tasks. First of all, I would like to mention corporate
social responsibility for employees. There has been a great deal of
positive discussion surrounding this issue for many years now and
many things have been done right. But are we doing enough? Is
it enough to simply feel social responsibility towards employees?
Shouldn’t we be thinking instead about initiating completely different
forms of organising work?
Again, let me give you a personal example. When I was still an
active politician, I was invited every year to speak at various New
Year’s Eve receptions. I was invited to one a couple of years ago
by a company in the Swabian Alps. This traditional, family-run
mechanical-engineering company had just proudly inaugurated a
new offi ce building, in which there was not only a canteen, but
also a company-run crèche right next to it. During my visit, many
employees proudly told me that they are now able to at least have
lunch together with their children. Why not take a leaf out of their
book and imitate this example?
I also came to learn in the meantime that we have major problems
in recognising company-run crèches for tax purposes. But if we
have the commuter tax rebate and the second home and advertising
costs or whatever they’re called that are tax deductible, then
the state should also make company-run crèches tax deductible.
They are useful and also, as the example I’ve just mentioned demonstrates,
a tool to enable families to achieve a work-life balance.
It must be possible to come up with other forms of organisation in
companies, and perhaps we should start with medium-sized companies
that still have strong ties with the region and the city in
which they are based.

The second, maybe even more important major task relates to education
policy. We have made a lot of progress in Germany and in many
other European countries over the past few years. Education policy is
no longer as bad as it used to be and it is a lot better than people think.
But is this enough? Are civil society and companies doing enough to
support the most important state institution and the most important
cell of our society outside of the family unit? Are we all doing
enough for the primary schools, the secondary schools, the special
disability schools, the vocational colleges and the grammar schools
in the towns in which we live and work? Some may say “yes we are”.
But can all of us really say that we are? Or have we as parents, and
as a father I include myself here, fallen victim to the passive attitude,
“here have my children, they are six years old and in thirteen
years at most I want them back well-educated and well brought
up”? Shouldn’t we actually be accompanying them to school
instead to see with our own eyes what is actually going on there?
Not to sit there in the background and criticise the teachers, but go
there in the evenings or on a Saturday to discuss the future development
of the school. Companies must also play a role in schools
and children’s education. Why isn’t there a nationwide system in
place for public-private partnerships for all schools in Germany?
Where is the co-responsibility of corporate management for what
is going on in schools?
One thing is blatantly clear. If families, due to circumstances that
we can no longer change and perhaps we no longer want to change
them, can no longer fulfi l their role, then educational institutions,
and particularly primary schools, must automatically step in to fi ll
the gap. But in this scenario, these institutions have to deliver a
performance that goes far beyond the school curriculum. Because,
in this scenario, social education is required and guidance for later
life, and eventually career orientation. For the fate of our society, no
other profession is of more importance in the long term than the
teaching profession; both in a negative and a positive sense. As a
footnote I would like to present you with a small fi nding: the teaching
profession is now so downgraded that hardly any more men
are entering it. Primary schools, and nowadays secondary schools
as well, remain almost entirely dominated by female teachers. But
what does it mean for boys to grow up with a single mother, only
to see female teachers at nursery school and only to have contact
with women in the fi rst two school stages, never to experience the
authority of a man?
Research on this is still in its early stages, but this surely has an
impact on a boy’s development. The teaching profession must
therefore be revalued so that it becomes an attractive prospect
for both men and women in equal measure.
I would like to conclude with this plea. Globalisation, mobility,
completely new forms of employment and completely new
demands on life-long learning are all here to stay. As a society, we
will have to come up with new answers to these issues day after
day and week after week.
“For the fate of our society, no other profession is of more importance in the
long term than the teaching profession. This profession must therefore be
revalued so that it becomes an attractive prospect for both men and women
in equal measure.”
But these answers cannot and must not simply consist of
increased transfer payments, but include regained responsibility
of each individual citizen for companies, society, and for educational
institutions in particular. In the foreseeable future, churches
will probably no longer be able to make a contribution. I am very
sorry to say that there is a huge diff erence here between us and
what we still see in large parts of America. In the States, people are
deeply religious and churches and religious communities assume a
great deal of responsibility for shaping community life. But if such
institutions cease to exist in the future or are only available to a
certain extent, then this task will be ours. We will have to assume
this responsibility ourselves, together with foundations and over
time. And here I come back full circle to what Ronald Heifetz
said – having time for our children, our friends and our families
will be the most important factor for the fate of a society, which
should and must retain its human face if it wants to enable prosperity
and social justice.
23

24
About the speakers
Ronald Heifetz M.D. is the King Hussein bin Talal Senior Lecturer
in Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government
and co-founder of the Center for Public Leadership. He is
well-known for his groundbreaking work on the study and practice
of leadership. His work focuses on how to strengthen the adaptive
capabilities of society, business and the non-profi t sector. His
book, “Leadership without Easy Answers”, is now available in its
13th edition. He is also the co-author of “Leadership on the Line
and The Practice of Adaptive Leadership”. Alongside his work at
the Harvard Kennedy School, Dr Heifetz M.D. also provides consultancy
services for leading politicians as well as fi gures from the
private and non-profi t sectors and is co-founder of the consultancy
fi rm Cambridge Leadership Associates. He is an ex-graduate
of Columbia University, of the Harvard Medical School and of the
Harvard Kennedy School. He is a doctor and an excellent cellist.
Friedrich Merz studied jurisprudence and political science in Bonn
and Marburg. He began work fi rst as a judge and later became
a lawyer. He was elected to the European Parliament in 1989,
where he was a member until 1994. He was then a member of
the Bundestag until 2009 and also held the chair of the CDU/CSU
parliamentary group. At the beginning of January 2010, he was
appointed to the Supervisory Board of HSBC Trinkaus as successor
to the late Otto Graf Lambsdorff . Since June 2010, he has held
power of attorney for the sale of WestLB. His book, “Only Those
Who Change Will Survive” (2004), remained on the bestseller list
for months. He published “Venturing More Capitalism: Ways to a
Just Society in 2008” and co-wrote “What Needs to Be Done Now:
Germany 2.0” together with Wolfgang Clement in 2010.

About the moderator
Roger de Weck is a freelance journalist. After studying economics
at the University of St. Gallen, he was editor in chief of the Swiss
Tagesanzeiger from 1992 to 1997, and of ZEIT magazine from 1997
to 2001. Since 2001, he has been the presenter of Sternstunden
Philosophie (magic moment philosophy), a Swiss TV programme
on SF DRS. In his capacity as an economist, he is also President of
the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in
Geneva and lectures at the College of Europe in Bruges and Warsaw.
Since the beginning of 2011, Roger Weck has held the position
of Director General of the Swiss Radio and Broadcasting Society.
25

26
Participants
Haniel Lecture November 4, 2010

Silke Adamitza
Project Coordinator Eastern Europe,
Willy Brandt School of Public Policy,
University of Erfurt
Peter Albrecht
Member of the Management Board,
PricewaterhouseCoopers AG, Essen
Dr Ernst Alers, Mülheim/Ruhr
Gisela Alers, Mülheim/Ruhr
Dr Rupert Antes
Executive Director, Haniel Foundation,
Duisburg
Dr Claus-Michael Baier
Managing Director, HANITAX-
Steuer beratungsgesellschaft mbH,
Düsseldorf
Dr Markus Baumanns
Managing Director, Schumacher und
Baumanns GmbH, Hamburg
Dr Georg F. Bauer, Hamburg
Matthias Beck
Managing Director, Kronos Network
GmbH, Munich
Prof. Dr Andreas Blätte
Institute of Political Science, University
of Duisburg-Essen
Christine Blondel, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor of Family Business,
INSEAD, The Business School for the
World, Fontainebleau
Dr Jens-Jürgen Böckel
Member of the Management Board,
Holding Tengelmann-Group,
Mülheim/Ruhr
Christoph Böninger
Member of the Board of Trustees,
Haniel Foundation, Munich
Prof. Dr Michael Boutros
Head of Division Signalling and Functional
Genomics, German Cancer Research Centre,
Heidelberg
Tillmann Rudolf Braun, M.P.A. (Harv.)
Federal Foreign Offi ce, Berlin
Prof. Dr Christoph Brockhaus, Duisburg
Dr Robbi Brockhaus, Duisburg
Dr Georg Brodach
Senior Vice President, ABB Europe,
Brussels
Lise Bruynooghe
European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, London
Dr Ludger Buerstedde
Ambassador rtd., Bonn
Ben Buiting
Member of the Management Board,
PricewaterhouseCoopers AG, Essen
Christian von Bülow, Nuremberg
Veronica von Bülow
Attorney at law, Nuremberg
Prof. James A. Cooney, Ph.D.
Vice Provost for International Aff airs,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Michael Cramer, Düsseldorf
Dr Vera Cramer, Düsseldorf
Gesa Curtius-Stollenwerk
Judge at the Frankfurt/Main County Court
Prof. Dr Joachim Curtius, Wiesbaden
Dr Gert Dahlmanns, M.C.L.
Advisory Board Zeppelin University,
Friedrichshafen
Marita Dahlmanns, Friedrichshafen
Ralf Däinghaus, Düsseldorf
Stephanie Delhees
NRW School of Governance, University
of Duisburg-Essen
Alexandra Diehl
Attorney at law, Düsseldorf
Dr Stefan Dietzfelbinger
Managing Director, Niederrheinische
Industrie- und Handelskammer, Duisburg
Lavinia Diniz Freitas, London
Jan-Peter Dolff
Comgest Deutschland GmbH, Düsseldorf
Dr Anke Dörner
Head of McCloy Academic Scholarship
Program, Studien stiftung des deutschen
Volkes, Bonn
Doris Dorra, Essen
Dr Frank-Detlef Drake
Vice President, Corporate Research &
Development, RWE AG, Essen
Christian Graf Dürckheim, London
Dr Christian Duve
Freshfi elds Bruckhaus Deringer,
Frankfurt/Main
Sebastian Dworack
Managing Director, Willy Brandt School
of Public Policy, University of Erfurt
27
Lothar Ehring
Assistant to the Deputy Director – General
Directorate – General External Trade EU,
Brussels
Prof. Dr Frank Ettrich
Director, Willy Brandt School of Public
Policy, University of Erfurt
Paul Falke
Managing Associate, FALKE KGaA,
Schmallenberg
Dr Gunilla Fincke
Managing Director, Expert Advisory Board
of German Foundations for Integration
and Migration, Berlin
Dr Markus Fisseler
Freshfi elds Bruckhaus Deringer, Munich
Andreas Flick
Franz Haniel & Cie. GmbH, Duisburg
Caroline Flüh, Berlin

28 | Participants
John Flüh
Attorney at law and Notary, Hengeler
Mueller, Berlin
Tobias Frick
Franz Haniel & Cie. GmbH, Duisburg
Rüdiger Frohn
Chairman of the Advisory Board,
Stiftung Mercator GmbH, Essen
Sir Jürgen C. Gehrels KBE, Italy
Dr Heiko Giermann, LL.M. (McGill)
FPS Rechtsanwälte und Notare, Düsseldorf
Maria D. Gonzalez, Düsseldorf
Reinhard Gorenfl os
Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.,
London
Ellen Grisar, Freiburg
Peter Groos
Member of the Board of Trustees,
Haniel Foundation, Munich
Signe Groos, Munich
Prof. Dr Dieter Grunow
Institute for Political Science,
University of Duisburg-Essen
Dr Vera Grunow-Lutter, Duisburg
Dr Ulrich Guntram
Chairman of the Management Board,
AXA Art Versicherung AG, Cologne
Özge Guzelsu, Berlin
Friederike Haniel, Cologne
Franz M. Haniel
Chairman of the Supervisory Board,
Franz Haniel & Cie. GmbH
Chairman of the Board of Trustees,
Haniel Foundation, Munich
Hans Jakob Haniel, Cologne
Christoph Hardt
Head of Internal Communications,
SIEMENS AG, Munich
Ulla Hardt, Munich
Ronald Heifetz M.D.
Expert Leadership, Founder of the Harvard
University’s Center for Public Leadership,
Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Dr Andrej Heinke
Senior Expert Corporate Strategy, Robert
Bosch GmbH, Stuttgart
Prof. Dr Dr Engelbert Heitkamp, Essen
Monika Heitkamp, Essen
Prof. Dr Dr h.c. Brun-Hagen Hennerkes
Senior Partner, Hennerkes, Kirchdörfer &
Lorz, Stuttgart
Prof. Dr Dietmar Herz
State Secretary, Thuringian Ministry of
Justice, Erfurt
Dr Anne Gräfi n v. Hochberg, Bocholt
Peter Graf v. Hochberg
Managing Director and Partner,
Booz & Company, Düsseldorf
Kathrin Susanne Höckel, Munich
Ulrich Hocker
Chief Executive Offi cer, Deutsche
Schutz vereinigung für Wertpapierbesitz,
Düsseldorf
Prof. Dr Florian F. Hoff mann
Franz Haniel Chair of Public Policy,
Willy Brandt School of Public Policy,
University of Erfurt
Beate Hoff mann-Becking, Düsseldorf
Prof. Dr Michael Hoff mann-Becking
Partner, Hengeler Mueller, Düsseldorf
Rainer Höll
Ashoka Deutschland gGmbH, Munich
Dipl.-Ing. MBA Bodo Holz
Chairman of the Advisory Board,
Management Engineers GmbH + Co. KG,
Düsseldorf
Felix Hufeld, Bad Homburg
Gerrit Huy
Management Consultant, Buch
Cornelia Jakob, Essen
Prof. Dr Karl Friedrich Jakob
Chairman of the Management Board,
RWTÜV, Essen
Friedrich P. Joussen
Chairman of the Management Board,
Vodafone D2 GmbH, Düsseldorf
Cecilia Juárez Ramírez, Cologne
Philipp Justus
Chairman of the Management Board,
Zanox.de AG, Berlin
Christel Kaufmann-Hocker, Düsseldorf
Dr Horst Kayser
Chairman of the Management Board,
AEG Power Solutions B.V., Zwanenburg/
Netherlands
Dr Thomas Kempf
Member of the Management Board,
Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach-
Stiftung, Essen
Annabel von Klenck
Managing Director, Common Purpose,
Essen
Gabriele Kluge, Düsseldorf
Prof. Dr Jürgen Kluge
Chairman of the Managing Board,
Franz Haniel & Cie. GmbH, Duisburg
Anette Knappertsbusch, Düsseldorf
Maximilian Knappertsbusch, Düsseldorf
Prof. Dr Karl-Rudolf Korte
Director, NRW School of Governance,
University of Duisburg-Essen
Roman Kotov
Director, Centre of International Education,
Higher School of Economics, Moscow

30 | Participants

Dr Kathrin Krömer
Managing Director, Directorate General
Internal Services Berlin-Brandenburg
Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Berlin
Dr Gabriele Kröner
Directorate, Dr Hans & Else Kröner
Stiftung “Menschen fördern”, Berg
Burkhard Landers
Chairman, Industrie- und Handelskammer
Duisburg-Wesel-Kleve zu Duisburg
Heidi Landwers-Schädlich, Düsseldorf
Kay Richard Landwers, Frankfurt/Main
Prof. Dr Thomas A. Lange
Spokesman of the Managing Board,
National-Bank, Essen
Helmut Laux
Head, North Rhine-Westphalia Branch IKB
Deutsche Industriebank AG, Düsseldorf
Tobias Leipprand
stiftung neue verantwortung, Berlin
Elke Libbert, Hamburg
Jürgen Libbert, Hamburg
Roland Lienau
Managing Director, Wendel Investissement,
Paris
Dr Hans-Georg Lilge
Programme Manager, MBA Management
for Central and Eastern Europe, Europa-
Universität Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder
Mathias Lingnau
Member Divisional Board, EXPRESS
Deutschland, DHL Express Germany, Bonn
Dr Helmut Linssen
Minister of State rtd., Issum
Sebastian Litta
stiftung neue verantwortung, Berlin
Dr Bernhard Lorentz
President and CEO, Stiftung Mercator
GmbH, Essen
Prof. Dr Ralph-Alexander Lorz, LL.M.
State Secretary rtd., Chair for German and
Foreign Public Law, International Law and
European Law, Heinrich-Heine-University
Düsseldorf
Dr Maximilian Martin, Genf
Klaus Martini
Wilhelm von Finck AG, Grasbrunn
Michaela Martini, Grasbrunn
Juliane Massenberg, Duisburg
Sophie Massenberg, Duisburg
Norbert Matysik
President, Head Offi ce Düsseldorf,
Deutsche Bundesbank
Rosita Meister, Stuttgart
Stefan Meister
Member of the Managing Board,
Franz Haniel & Cie. GmbH, Duisburg
Dr Klaus von Menges, Mülheim/Ruhr
Friedrich Merz
Former Member of the German Bundestag,
Partner Mayer Brown LLP, Berlin
Eveline Y. Metzen M.A.
Executive Director, Amerika Haus e.V.
NRW, Cologne
Friedrich von Metzler
Partner, B. Metzler seel. Sohn & Co. KGaA,
Frankfurt/Main
Dr Dietmar Meyersiek
Managing Associate, EXES Management
Information GmbH, Meerbusch
Jutta Meyersiek, Meerbusch
Maike Middelmann, Essen
Prof. h.c. (CHN) Dr Ing. E.h. Dr Ulrich
Middelmann, Essen
Dr Jörg Mittelsten Scheid
Chairman Advisory Board,
Vorwerk & Co. KG, Wuppertal
Vivica Mittelsten Scheid, Wuppertal
Hans Georg Mockel
Chancellor, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
University, Frankfurt/Main
Dr Frank B. Müller
Directorate, vita Stiftung für Umwelt,
Bildung und Kultur, Oberursel
Björn Münstermann
McKinsey & Company, Munich
Dr Stephan Muschick
RWE Stiftung, Essen
Prof. Minori Murata
Centre for Japanese Studies,
Keio University
Dr Klaus Neuhoff
Head of Institute, Stiftung und Gemeinwohl,
University of Witten/Herdecke
Prof. Dr Christian Oberländer
Seminar for Japanese Studies, Martin-
Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg
Dr Alfred Oetker
Managing Director, Dr Oetker Nederland
b.v., Amersfoort/Netherlands
Roland Oetker
Managing Partner, ROI Verwaltungsgesellschaft,
Düsseldorf
Suzanne Oetker, Düsseldorf
Michael Okrob
Teach First Deutschland gGmbH, Berlin
Ingo H. Pahl, Ratingen
Mathias Pahl, Munich
Prof. Dr Ulrich Radtke
President, University of Duisburg-Essen
Ulrich Reitz
Chief Editor, WAZ, Essen
Dr Andreas M. Rickert
CEO, PHINEO gemeinnützige AG, Berlin
31

32 | Participants
Dr Hergard Rohwedder
Attorney at law, Liberales Netzwerk,
Düsseldorf
Dr Michael Roßbach
LIFE & BRAIN GmbH, Bonn University
Dr Susanne Rückert
Attorney at law, Düsseldorf
Katrin Ruhfus, MBA
Head of Chairman’s Offi ce, HSBC Trinkaus,
Düsseldorf
Dr Rolf Ruhfus
Chairman and CEO, c/o LodgeWorks
Corporation, Düsseldorf
Dr Michael Schädlich, Düsseldorf
Dr Jochen Scheel, LL.M.
Partner, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
LLP, Frankfurt/Main
Prof. Dr Rolf Schieder
Professor for Practical Theology,
Humboldt-University, Berlin
Carola Gräfi n von Schmettow
HSBC Trinkaus, Düsseldorf
Anita Schmidt, Essen
Dr Jochen Schmidt
Attorney at law and Notary, Essen
Dr Armin Schmiedeberg
Director, Bain & Company, Düsseldorf
Anna-Lena Schneider
Consultant, Haniel Foundation, Duisburg
Caspar v. Schoeler
Teach First Deutschland gGmbH, Berlin
Christina Schrade
Director, SEEK Development, Berlin
Prof. Dr Dr h.c. Gesine Schwan
President, Humboldt-Viadrina School
of Governance, Berlin
Patrick Schwarz-Schütte
Managing Director, Black Horse Investment
GmbH, Düsseldorf
Dr Gary Smith
Executive Director, American Academy,
Berlin
Prof. Dr jur. Dr Ing. E.h. Dieter Spethmann,
Düsseldorf
Elisabeth Birte Spethmann, Düsseldorf
Prof. Dr Sascha Spoun
Member of the Board of Trustees,
Haniel Foundation, Duisburg
President Leuphana University,
Lüneburg
Prof. Dr Dr h.c. Joachim Starbatty
Chairman of the Management Board,
Aktionsgemeinschaft Soziale Marktwirtschaft,
Tübingen
Dr Wulf v. Stark, Gräfelfi ng
Margo Steiner
Harvard Kennedy School of Government,
Boston
Dr Marion Steiner Stassinopoulos,
Baar/Zug
Andrea Stürmer
Strategic Assistant to Group CEO, Zurich
Financial Services, Zurich
Christiane Frfr. v.d. Tann, Tann/Rhön
Prof. Jan Teunen
Teunen Konzepte, Geisenheim
Christa Thoben
Minister of State rtd., Bochum
Prof. Dr Günter Trost
ITB Consulting GmbH, Bonn
Gabriele Trützschler, Essen
Prof. Dr Klaus Trützschler
Member of the Managing Board,
Franz Haniel & Cie. GmbH, Duisburg
Dr Michael J. Ulmer
Attorney at law, Allen & Overy LLP,
Frankfurt/Main
Roger de Weck
Freelance Publicist, Berlin and Zurich
Peter Weidig
Managing Director, Haniel Academy,
Duisburg
Prof. Dr Peter Welzel
Chair of Economics – Ökonomie der
Informationsgesellschaft, Augsburg
University
Dr Michael Werhahn
Wilh. Werhahn KG, Neuss
Dr Angelika Westerwelle
Managing Director, LANAX Management
GmbH, Berlin
Mylène Wienrank, Bonn
Prof. Dr Hans Georg Willers
Member of the Board of Trustees,
Haniel Foundation, Düsseldorf
Ansgar Wimmer
Chairman of the Executive Board,
Alfred Toepfer Stiftung, Hamburg
Prof. Dr Kay Windthorst, Munich
Stefan Wisbauer
US Preventive Medicine, Managing Director
UK & International, European Leadership
Academy, Co-founder, London
Malte Woweries
Corporate Strategy and Communications
DEG – Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft,
Cologne
Andreas Zimmer
Managing Associate, Zimmer & Rohde
GmbH, Oberursel
Dr Karsten W. Zimmermann
Managing Associate, Agon Group Strategic
Consulting, Munich
Lars Zimmermann
CEO, stiftung neue verantwortung, Berlin
Dr Peter-Christian Zinkann
Co-owner, Miele & Cie. KG, Gütersloh
Claus Zoellner
Chairman of the Advisory Board, Accumulatorenwerke
HOPPECKE, Brilon

Haniel Lecture Series
1st Haniel Lecture
Hagen Schulze, Was ist eigentlich Europa?
David Marsh, Ist das Maastrichter Modell
noch zeitgemäß?
1993
2nd Haniel Lecture
Europa und seine Nachbarn
Jean François-Poncet, Die Ost- und die
Sü dfl anke Europas
Otto von der Gablentz, Die Herausfor derungen
im Osten Europas
1996
3rd Haniel Lecture
Where does Innovation come from?
Hubert Markl, What makes Research
Innovative?
Giuseppe Vita, Impulses for Innovation
from the World of Business
1998
4th Haniel Lecture
Why do we still care about Europe in
a time of globalisation?
Leon Brittan/Kurt Biedenkopf
2001
5th Haniel Lecture
Hegemony or Partnership? The Transatlantic
Relationship in a Changing World
Joseph S. Nye jr./Wolfgang Schäuble
2003
6th Haniel Lecture
The International Competitiveness of
German Companies
and the role of the European Commission
Frits Bolkestein/Jü rgen Kluge
2004
7th Haniel Lecture
Europe and China – Partners or Competitors
in Today’s World?
The Hon. Sir David Li Kwok-po, GBS, JP,
OBE/Jü rgen F. Strube
2006
8th Haniel Lecture
Elite Education, Advanced Research
and Innovation –
Europe and the U. S. in the Face of
Challenges from the “New World”
Jeff rey D. Sachs, Gesine Schwan,
Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker
2008
9th Haniel Lecture
Live to work or work to live?
Ronald Heifetz, Friedrich Merz
2010
Publications are available under the
foundation’s offi ce address or under
www.haniel-stiftung.de

Imprint
Editor
Haniel Stiftung, Duisburg
Editors in charge
Katharina Golomb
Concept and Design
Burkhard Wittemeier, Cologne
Photos
Stephan Brendgen, Monheim
Printers
Druckhaus Duisburg
Contact
Haniel Stiftung
Franz-Haniel-Platz 6 – 8
47119 Duisburg
Germany
Phone +49 203 806-367/-368
Fax +49 203 806-720
stiftung@haniel.de
www.haniel-stiftung.de
Printed on recycled paper made
entirely from waste paper.

04/11 – d/1,200 – e/200