Management Models: Harzburg
The Harzburger Model: A Critical Analysis
The Harzburger Model is a management method based on delegation of responsibility and clear job descriptions. The model was developed in the 1950s by the former SS official Reinhard Höhn. It was widely used in (West) German companies and was the dominant management philosophy in the country for decades. Although the model offered advantages at an organizational level, it has also received much criticism, particularly regarding its ideological roots and its limited flexibility in a changing business environment. In this article, I will discuss both the practical application and the historical and sociological criticism of the Harzburger Model.
The core of the Harzburger Model
The Harzburger Model is based on the premise that employees are not mere subordinates, but active participants in the decision-making process. The method introduces strict job descriptions, which clearly define the tasks and responsibilities of employees. This should prevent micromanagement and allow managers to focus on strategic decision-making. In practice, this meant that:
- Employees were given autonomy in how they performed their tasks, as long as they achieved the set goals.
- Managers were less involved in operational details and instead acted as controllers of progress.
- Clear job descriptions ensured transparency in authority and responsibilities.
This model was implemented in many German companies and was taught to thousands of managers in the town of Bad Harzburg. It was seen as a progressive method of motivating employees and increasing efficiency.
Benefits of the Harzburger Model
Many companies have experienced benefits from implementing the model, such as:
- Clear job descriptions and defined responsibilities led to a more efficient organizational structure.
- By delegating tasks and decisions to lower levels, senior management could focus on strategic issues.
- Employees were given more autonomy and therefore felt more involved in their work.
- With fewer bureaucratic intermediate layers, employees were able to make and implement decisions more quickly.
The influence of its creator Reinhard Höhn
The Harzburger Model was designed by Reinhard Höhn, a former SS general. After the Second World War, Reinhard Höhn managed to reposition himself as an influential figure in the field of management and business organization, despite his prominent role within the National Socialist bureaucracy and the SS. In 1956, he founded the Akademie für Führungskräfte der Wirtschaft in Bad Harzburg, where he further developed his ideas about business management. This led to the development of the Harzburger Model. The influence of Höhn's earlier National Socialist ideology was not explicitly stated. Historians and researchers have argued that certain organizational principles of the model can be traced back to authoritarian management ideas from the National Socialist period.
Criticism of the Harzburger Model
Despite its organizational advantages, the Harzburger Model has also received much criticism. The main criticisms focus on:
1. Ideological roots and continuity with National Socialism
According to critics, the model hardly differed from the organizational structure of the Nazis: a strict hierarchy in which responsibility was formally delegated, while actual control remained at the top. Sociologist Stefan Kühl points out that similar management methods, such as "Management by Objectives" by Peter Drucker, developed in parallel. This suggests that the principles of the Harzburger Model were also part of broader management developments and were not necessarily a continuation of National Socialist ideology. It is striking that the focus on the value "community" was hidden by Höhn, while Drucker highlighted it.
2. Limited flexibility and bureaucratization
Another criticism is that the model became too rigid and bureaucratic. The strong emphasis on job descriptions and fixed responsibilities led to problems such as:
- In a dynamic working environment, job descriptions quickly became outdated and limited employees in their ability to respond to changes. - Organizations spent a lot of time and resources on creating and updating job descriptions, which led to a bureaucratic workload.
- Because responsibilities were strictly defined, internal conflicts arose over who got to decide what.
According to sociologist Stefan Kühl, the strict legalization of the model was one of the reasons for its demise. In an era in which flexibility and adaptability were becoming increasingly important, companies that strictly adhered to the model had difficulty adapting to new management trends.
3. Limited real decentralization of power
Although the model delegated power on paper, critics argue that actual decision-making was still centrally controlled by senior management. Managers retained information and coordination powers, which limited the actual autonomy of employees.
Selective distribution of information ensured that employees had access only to what was deemed necessary for their task, which reduced the actual degree of autonomy.
Strong hierarchical control remained, with deviations from prescribed guidelines seen as problematic. This led to the conclusion that the model did not fundamentally break traditional top-down power structures, but merely offered a more systematic way of distributing tasks.
Conclusion
The Harzburger Model has been one of the most influential management methods in post-war Germany and has had a lasting impact on how companies were organized. The emphasis on clear responsibilities and delegated decision-making offered advantages such as more efficient organizations and higher productivity. At the same time, the model has received considerable criticism, both on the basis of historical continuity with National Socialist management principles and for its lack of flexibility and bureaucratic rigidity. While the model promised autonomy, it actually maintained control and limited the actual decision-making of employees.
Ultimately, the Harzburger Model was abandoned by many companies due to changing management trends and the need for more flexible, less hierarchical structures. It remains a fascinating example of how management theories can be rooted in the broader historical and social context.
Sources:
Höhn, R. (1967), Das Harzburger Modell in der Praxis - Rundgesprach über die Erfahrungen mit dem neuen Führungsstil in der Wirtschaft, Bad Harzburg: Verlag für Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft und Technik.
Kühl, S. (2021), “Führen auf Harzburger Art”, Süddeutsche Zeitung, April 9, 2021.
Müller-Nobiling, H.M. (1966), „The "Harzburger Modell" - A critical Würdigung from the Sicht des Organisators“, Zeitschrift für Organisation, Vol. 35, Issue 1.
Trebesch, K. (1970), “Organisationssoziologische Analyze des Harzburger Modells - Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung”, congena 1970 Issue 1.
Wikipedia (2025) page "Harzburger Modell".