Public administration and second-line leadership in Argentina
Through the 36 years of seniority in the Judiciary, both national and Buenos Aires, I have developed my own vision of what proper leadership means for the Public Administration, as well as resigned myself to never seeing it reflected, thanks to the everlasting way to designate the "chiefs" of the different areas. And I have always been powerfully struck by the reason why so many characters have set out to sketch profiles and models of leaders in private activity, but no one has ever tried to refer to the point within the area to which I belong: the state public sphere. Obviously, it may be for lack of interest, but also for lack of courage.But I do not think it is feasible that my colleagues worry too much if I try to unravel the prevailing reality -according to my perspective based on training and experience- since each teacher has his book, and I do not see why he should not try to demonstrate a fundamental and exclusive premise: the Argentine Public Administration has leaders (in theory), but strictly speaking, the true leaders are below the highest line of command –except with honorable exceptions- and from the second executive line they exercise practical, effective leadership, which makes it possible that despite the problems facing the country, public institutions can continue to carry out their task, beyond limitations and inconveniences of all kinds, outside this call.and I do not see why it should not try to demonstrate a fundamental and exclusive premise: the Argentine Public Administration has leaders (in theory), but strictly speaking the true leaders are below the highest line of command - except for honorable exceptions- and from the second executive line they exercise practical, effective leadership, which makes it possible that despite the problems facing the country, public institutions can continue to carry out their task, beyond limitations and inconveniences of all kinds, alien to it announcement.and I do not see why it should not try to demonstrate a fundamental and exclusive premise: the Argentine Public Administration has leaders (in theory), but strictly speaking the true leaders are below the highest line of command - except for honorable exceptions- and from the second executive line they exercise practical, effective leadership, which makes it possible that despite the problems facing the country, public institutions can continue to carry out their task, beyond limitations and inconveniences of all kinds, alien to it announcement.but strictly speaking, the true leaders are below the highest line of command - except for honorable exceptions - and from the second executive line they exercise practical, effective leadership, which makes it possible that despite the problems facing the country, Public institutions can continue to carry out their task, beyond limitations and inconveniences of all kinds, outside this call.but strictly speaking, the true leaders are below the highest line of command - except for honorable exceptions - and from the second executive line they exercise practical, effective leadership, which makes it possible that despite the problems facing the country, public institutions can continue to perform their task, beyond limitations and inconveniences of all kinds, outside this call.
I think it would be foolish of me to pretend that this approach contributes to the training of change agents. Perhaps the outline is useful to unravel how the decisive tasks of our daily function are developed, through those subjects who are -and mobilize- the bureaucratic gears necessary for the fulfillment of the administrative objective.
THE CRISIS SITUATION.
It is quite evident that in the public sphere there is an almost absolute lack of leaders. There are neither natural nor invented. And with this I do not want to enter into the endless discussion that generates wondering if leaders are born or made. I mean - I repeat - that we have neither, beyond the answer that each one has for that question. It is time here to briefly establish some characteristics -which are not negligible- that are capable of leading groups.
Many authors refer to the "art of leadership" consisting of conquering the enthusiasm, loyalty, initiative and dedication of the heart of their leaders. This position is enlisted in that of those who maintain that to exercise leadership the instinct that –more or less- we have for it is not enough.
As I have already stated before, I do not want to enter this controversial field, but I do affirm from my personal experience that leading is not simply issuing orders, no matter that they are imposed with energy and authority. Nor is it bending the wills of subordinates or subjecting them to capricious designs. On the contrary, leading is mainly THREE THINGS: EDUCATING, this is achieving the development of all the perfection that human nature carries with it; INSTRUCT, which consists of teaching precise technical notions and directing practical exercises to provide subordinates with the specific knowledge necessary to carry out their mission; and DRIVE, which turns out to guide and direct those in such a way that improving education and instruction in the collective sphere,be able to develop understanding and cooperation among all. In a word, that they are able to develop in task teams with division of activities, forming the whole that makes possible the highest result of the objective, and if possible, achieving excellence.
In this sense, the exercise of leadership involves three fundamental questions, which are: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTOR that is applied to people endowed with intelligence, will, passions and feelings. THE PEDAGOGICAL FACTOR aimed at shaping the instruction and education of the subordinate, and THE MORAL FACTOR regulating the behaviors of those influencing their individual behavior, and therefore reflected in the group.
In the field of Public Administration, the bosses –see that I say bosses and not leaders, because both terms are not synonymous- are usually respected not only for their hierarchy, but also for their years of seniority, their habits towards employees –in Whether he treats them well, badly or with indifference, their manners and the power they receive from the highest hierarchies. Thus we go through a gallery of characters "bosses" ranging from authoritarian to totally permissive, passing through the lack of character, the non-communicative, the irascible, the vehement, the infatuated, the depressive, dominated by his wife, etc.. It is an everyday reality that many of you also know.
A MEDIOCRE or BAD HEAD herds employees, gets respect by prevailing hierarchy, inspires concern or fear, says "I", says "show up on time", points out the penalty for the offense, always "knows" how things are done, he makes the job painful, he usually says "get out of here" and ends the dialogue abruptly and his only concern is the objective he pursues. Instead, a leader guides his men, obtains voluntary obedience, inspires confidence and arouses enthusiasm, always says "we", usually arrives before the others, only points out the offense, spends time teaching how things are done, wakes up that his People find their homework interesting, say "come on" and think of the men rather than the target. With the training and way of driving of the former,The only thing that can be achieved is to buy part of someone's time, their physical presence in the workplace and their muscular activity with a salary. On the other hand, for the leader, it is natural to receive enthusiasm, loyalty and dedication of heart, spirit and soul, but these virtues cannot be bought, they must be conquered.
In the whole country, it is a historically accepted practice what in good Argentine is called the fingercracy, because the vast majority of those who manage positions of higher hierarchical rank are designated by the finger, by consideration, by order, for convenience, etc., but almost never due to their aptitudes for the leadership of the specific area in which they are developed. And in the area of Justice, there are currently the Colleges of the Magistracy, but in their methods of selection and appointment of officials and Magistrates - highly questioned for lack of transparency - leadership conditions are not evaluated. Even if it looks like a lie.
In such a way that if we consider that there is a leadership crisis in the entire National Public Administration and in the provinces - as there is unquestionably - it is because the channels that allow the fittest to be promoted to higher hierarchies are not open administrative. And beware that when I say apt, I am not establishing a fierce and Darwinian selection system, but rather demanding and denouncing that the necessary conditions for the task of each hierarchical step are outlined, an element with which the commander can be selected according to his particular conditions and these are compared with the profile required by the position.
SECOND LINE LEADER MODEL.
It is almost common to find in most of the public work teams, employees who are essential in every place and task. Why does this phenomenon occur? Well, because they are the fittest, either because of their intellectual capacity, or because of their experience, or because of their natural charisma, or because… it doesn't matter, they are the ones who “know” and “make possible” their own task and that of their fellow workers. They are also the ones who "earn their bosses' wages." They are those types that the boss defends to death when they want to be removed from their areas, and unfortunately, they are the ones who work the most and bear responsibilities, because instead of being rewarded they are unjustly punished with a greater accumulation of obligations. Meanwhile, the mediocre are assigned to minor tasks or are promoted to "get rid of them." They are the ones who have trouble ascending,because…..it is not going to happen that promoted have to go. Or shade your current boss. The bottom line is that they are hurt by being efficient.
And in many cases they are true "leaders", they are people who fulfill within their daily work scope, with the qualities of guiding and carrying out the work, they are those who are ready for personal problems, they are those who establish general guidelines among the group so that things go well, even at the risk of being punished by their superior, because they disagree. In short, I have lived it, I have suffered it, and today I turn it here.
That type of leadership in such uncomfortable positions is often torturing and dangerous, but it can also become highly exemplary, to the point that the boss's subordinates rebel against him for propping up the climate generated by a peer, another employee or hierarchical lower range. Because these subjects generate a climate, something akin to a long-range body energy field that envelops the workplace where they work and makes them “indisputable”. The maximum phenomenon is noticed when the group establishes its link of belonging around itself. I have lived it and it is a wonderful feeling. From this, basically two attitudes of his superiors will emerge. One of rejection and persecution - I have suffered and I know the cost - and the other of approval and use,which I have happily also experienced through someone who allowed me to be promoted to the Magistracy as recognition and reward for the efficiency of my task and loyalty evidenced. Likewise, I have seen with pride how today my subordinates look from those days, who were then minor employees and to whom I dedicated time and effort because I found them endowed with decisive conditions to achieve their maximum possible job objective. Many of them have succeeded and that brings me immense happiness.who were then minor employees and to whom I dedicated time and effort because I found them endowed with decisive conditions to achieve their maximum possible job objective. Many of them have succeeded and that brings me immense happiness.who were then minor employees and to whom I dedicated time and effort because I found them endowed with decisive conditions to achieve their maximum possible job objective. Many of them have succeeded and that brings me immense happiness.
THE LACK OF LEADERS IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE HANDLING OF APPOINTMENTS.
It is not those who do the best training courses who manage to be leaders. It is obvious that from what has been said, you can understand that I am involved in the thesis that a leader is born as such, can be perfected but not manufactured. Either you are a leader or you are not a leader. There are good bosses, but they are not leaders, precisely because a boss can be trained for it…
Training can give a subject the knowledge of subordinate management, work methods, organization techniques, knowledge and management of laws and regulations, command and control procedures, and administration of materials and equipment in the area. But the ability and attitude they must be born to him, spontaneous, improvised, on the march of the needs to solve negative factors. I do not deny that they can be perfected, but if they are not in germ in the subject, learning will not make him a leader, when it can lead him to be a competent boss. It is not the same.
WHERE IS THERE A LEADER?
When you enter any public office, don't look for it, just stay somewhere and wait a few minutes. You will see how most employees come and go consulting another employee who is at a desk in the same room. You will not notice that the others go to the offices that are divided with partitions and other masonry. You will notice that they are going to consult a couple, an equal. That's the leader, the second line that runs the office. And you will never know if what your boss told you to do, but the office passes through your hands. And his boss usufructs the revenue, often with disgust because he is aware of what that means. If he is not intelligent, he must definitely pursue him.
Other times, employees always go to an adjoining office and take turns entering. When you leave you will see that they have dispelled their doubts and are working freely and safely. Well, in that office, behind that door, there is the leader. This may not be the office of the highest hierarchical chief. It is very likely that it is not. But there is the bridge to cross…
THE PATERNALISM OF THE LEADER.
It is indisputable that a leader will know how to solve any problem that arises in daily activity. However, it does not grant security solely for that quality, which is fundamental and nothing else can be said. But surely, his subordinates or peers will evaluate - together with that security that gives them in the technical aspect - his human, personal conditions, those that make him lovable as a human being. Therefore, there is no such thing as utilitarianism, but rather a relationship of affection and contentment towards others, which is the heritage of a good parent. This subject is concerned to know the character of each one, to distinguish the strong from the weak, to whom he responds with loyalties, to reason, strength, affection. Because the others feel that he is interested in them, not only for the files or papers, but for his life,their families, their likes and dislikes. Furthermore, because it not only marks the mission of each one, but also recognizes their merits, it indicates to them where their greatest abilities are and which dark sides they should improve. He treats them fairly, impartially, courteously, respects their feelings and listens to their suggestions. It fulfills the promises it makes and - by showing them that it trusts them - allows them to take some initiatives.
A true leader, is one who prepares others to succeed him, is the father who teaches a son to ride a bicycle with the support wheels, but then removes them, knowing that subsequent falls will make his son learn finally to dominate it. It is an attitude devoid of selfishness that does not speculate or hide knowledge or experiences from the other, and if it makes its subordinate succeed in standing out more than himself, he enjoys it and does not impede his progress, although with it he loses his best element. Here is the gift of people who do not buy or sell, is on the moral plane of their person and is prior to any training or technical improvement they may have received. I insist, the leader is born as such.
PERSPECTIVES TO IMPROVE.
I do not understand why, once when a promotion in the public sphere was discussed, for example, Ms. Cristina Mejías, Alfredo Bernardi, Bernardo Hidalgo, Marcelo Pitluk, Jorge Hambra or Eduardo Press were not called, renowned consultants in the human resources area of major companies hired by the private sector to permanently analyze the profile of the successful leader in the dynamics of the national market. I ask myself a question. Does this mean that we do not need leaders in the Public Administration? Of course we need them, but for that you have to open a path that is full of grasslands, and you have to want to have leaders in public hierarchical positions.
The lawyer Jorge Mosquera, in his column "RR.HH" of the newspaper La Nación, on June 18, 2000 wrote a note entitled "The stigma of working in the State", in which it established - precisely - that the sector Private disparages everything state and public because it is considered mediocre, lacking in qualities and competitiveness. Painful and cruel, but true. The American specialist Bernard Cullen described for La Nación the type of leadership that the public and private sectors demand, but obviously he did it taking into account his vernacular guidelines, not the Creole ones. But nonetheless, when referring to the skills of the leader in both sectors, he said “… specific technical skills are needed in both sectors, as well as certain personal abilities.But in the public sphere, managers have to have greater persuasion and personal influence skills, because they must be able to get people to work together… ”
Here is one of the great craters of the Public Administration, how to achieve efficient work teams. When I made my teaching career, I spent many nights studying the complex operation of the operating groups, for which I had copious bibliography that came from the private sector, never from the public. And it is no coincidence that it happened to me. In public activity, nobody ever cared too much about that, but about obtaining individualities. While this happens daily in Argentina, the industrialized world, that mirror in which we Argentines want to look at ourselves but do nothing to make ourselves appear, is going in another direction.Harvey Robbins (team specialist) and Michael Finley (management expert) in their book "Why Teams Fail" raise the most common cases of failure when working in groups. And with the initial kick of a Spanish consultancy that advises private companies, soccer became the most popular example of joint work. Thus, the Ernst & Young subsidiary in Madrid hired the Argentine coach Jorge Valdano (former player of our world champion national team in 1986) to integrate a research team for the development of high-performance teams. The director of the Selection and Search Division of BC & Asociados, Bibiana Crocitta analyzed this phenomenon for La Nación and highlighted the importance of the leader, saying “..the presence of a true guide is one of the basic keys to consolidate the existence of a team and facilitate their work… ”.
INTELLECTUAL COEFFICIENT OR EXPERIENCE? BOTH OF THEM.
For reasons that will surely have to do with the paradigms of the consumer society, young people are prioritized. And it is obvious that they are worth the push, the desire, the unpredictability of limits, everything that makes a bulldozer on the move. At the same time, in western society for a long time, while on the one hand the longevity and quality of life of people has been extended, on the other hand they are “discarded” at an early age for work tasks. That criminal selection that prioritizes a person for her life schedule and not for her personal and professional conditions, generates permanent conflicts.
The first and most serious is the unemployment of people over 35 years old. Then, I usually see that the managerial positions are filled with very young people, sometimes too much. Their intellect and their particular conditions are not at stake, but the data of the experience is incomprehensibly ignored. If we add this reality to individualistic and non-group operations (this is when there is no well-formed team) the young "boss" ends up dispensing with his older collaborators, and vice versa, the latter remove or diminish the collaboration with the "impertinent brat".
These crises have been the subject of treatment in the pages of the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio, analyzing the generational conflict between bosses and subordinates when the conditions that I have previously referred to basically occur. And if these problems are studied in private activity, what to expect in the public sphere as it is handled in our country, with young people who access public executive positions at a very young age, stimulated and sponsored by politics, and generally without the support of knowledge or experience. The results will be fatal, there is no other possibility. It is sad to have to admit on my part, that I have asked myself in this regard, will this be done deliberately so that the public bureaucracy does not work correctly? And I'm not convinced that the answer is 100 percent negative.
THE MOST COMMON LEADING MODEL IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE, TODAY.
The authors on the subject have established six models or styles, namely:
COERCITIVE: requires immediate obedience.
GUIDANCE: motivates subordinates to work towards an objective.
AFFILIATIVE: creates harmony and fosters relationships.
PARTICIPATORY: build consensus through participation.
IMITATIVE: sets exacting standards of excellence.
TRAINER: develop people for the future.
These profiles were designed in the book "The leadership that gives results" by Daniel Góleman, the author of "Emotional intelligence". What is significant in my opinion is that the front-line chiefs - note that I do not catalog them as leaders but as chiefs - all tend to be coercive and are eminently authoritarian in their management of personnel. On the contrary, the leaders who are inserted in the second lines of command have characteristics of indicative, affiliative, participatory, and empowering, which paradoxically would have to come from the maximum driver.
It is also true that not all task teams exist such leaders, but I know that the vast majority of them are present. And I repeat, that motivates internal conflicts between them and the bosses, and between the boss and his colleagues, who stand in solidarity because in most cases, each of these special "subordinates" has a significant charisma.
IN SUMMARY.
It is necessary to seriously consider for what reasons - if any - the Public Administration does not generate leaders or train them, nor does it try to select them, discovering them when it incorporates personnel through competitions or entrance or promotion exams.
And obligatorily, it is necessary to evaluate what reasons exist so that the leaders of “second line” generally do not get to occupy the maximum positions in their respective labor items.
Doesn't this seem like a good start to improve our public bureaucracy, as well as fighting corruption? I think it is. And thanks for giving me an opportunity to raise it.
Download the original file
