Contemporary administration is nothing more than the result of the interpretation, adaptation and, in some cases, redefinition of the concepts that have existed for centuries in organizational matters since man unexpectedly understood that he needed a command scheme to be able to create and dominate.
The structures have remained practically unchanged since they were devised by the first representatives of the political, social and economic order: A god of gods, king, emperor, leader or president. A retinue of advisers, viceroys, vice presidents, governors and whatever middle and basic command can be assigned to that current of thought in any of its expressions, obviously associated with the same paradigms of power that have dominated the world forever.
In that same world where monarchies and empires had to give way to democracies and understand that when a person is perpetuated in a large position, power ends up corrupting him and affecting his judgment; That is why alternation was proposed as a way of guaranteeing the perfect balance of power, since it prevents the person in command from losing the north of his duties and rights and, above all, he forgets the right that everyone has equally to govern the destiny of their nations.
However, in the face of this thought that for many seems logical and coherent in the political environment, a valid question arises… what happens in companies?
Unlike what happens in the social, public or political framework, as you wish to call it, where people elect their rulers and they have a start and end date, unless reelection is foreseen; The reality in companies is different, a person can hold the same position for years without the slightest intention of being removed or revoked, or at least, in the same way that is observed in the aforementioned scenarios. Paradoxical no?
Is it that perhaps staying in a position of significant power in a company cannot end up altering his judgment and making him occupy an immovable and all-powerful belief, to the point of losing job sensibility and ruling his unit as if it were from your own home?
The answer, unfortunately, is positive. Examples abound, presidents of corporations who seem eternal in their positions constantly changing their executive gear to avoid competitors, managers who have never had the opportunity to leave their area to explore their competences, and who call themselves experts in what they do as basic. to be. People who believe they are the absolute owners of the processes that govern and, in their delirium, challenge anyone regardless of their position or rank, putting the operation at risk because of their arrogance.
Those presidents, vice presidents, directors and managers forget that they were hired to add value to their positions and, once in them, they act with such impudence and lack of education that the rejection becomes collective. But nevertheless they have developed such a level of expertise that they use everything in their power to guarantee their permanence in their positions.
The most ironic thing is that these people display their permanence as an achievement, a true success, without taking into account how many people want to occupy the position they hold and which, on many occasions, are truly prepared for it.
Is it not wise that executives also be alternated? Just as power can corrupt people who hold positions of popular election, the same is undoubtedly the case in companies, which is why they should have the alternation of their representatives, companies should understand that many distortions would be corrected and labor problems if their managers and representatives were not hired to stay indefinitely in their positions and were aware that their performance for the benefit of all is the guarantee of their permanence in the ranks of the organization adding value in different activities and not tied to one.
It is not intended to say that if a manager is excellent at what he does he will be ignored once his time in office is over… just to be able to take advantage of the talent of his collaborators the company must evolve as proposed by the Managerial Zeitgeist and cease to be seen as limited as usual.
