When locating what would be the most observed competition in the leaders of Argentina, many people could miss the way and get lost in the ways of common sense. Following this, the planning capacity could be listed; that of organization; its persuasive qualities; your creativity and surely your resources to solve problems. However, and without wishing to detract from the previous ones, my intention is to establish as one of the most observed attitudinal peculiarities in leaders their low tolerance for frustration.
Let's start at the beginning. First of all, I understand as a leader any person who has collaborators in charge, be it just one or five hundred. The number is not relevant here. All of them share, to a greater or lesser extent, a link that is less problematic with their frustrations. Or, in other words, with their way of dealing with situations in which objectives cannot or have not been achieved.
This work was motivated by innumerable interviews carried out with different hierarchical lines that participate in an organization, ranging from middle managers to its managers and directors.
In all of them, after their psychological analysis, a striking recurrence emerged: their low levels to tolerate frustrations; defining this competence as "That ability to transform impossibilities or mistakes into a learning opportunity".
Clarifying, and so that it is not misunderstood: the above does not imply denying the ability to incorporate knowledge of the leaders, but in any case to take advantage of their own impossibilities, from them, escape the disabling pressure and take a qualitative leap towards modifying their behavior.
I can find in operatives and lower lines of the pyramid a greater capacity to tolerate frustrations than in their bosses. And the consequences are different in both cases.
In the former, a certain loose link between the task and its contribution to his narcissism.
Specifically, more than half of the collaborators who lack staff in charge, feel that their activity rather feeds their self-concept, and it follows that when there are undesired circumstances there is a greater distance from the problem.
Distance that allows a lower affective load, with the direct consequence of low discomfort.
On the other hand, in leaders and those with the potential to be so, the task occupies a different place.
More predominant I could say and that, also, involves them even more. But this involvement is not necessarily with the company of which they are part, but in any case with the activity itself.
The latter engages the subject to a great extent as long as it speaks of it, it is part of itself. And here we come to a point of greater complexity, where the clear articulation between two terms can be seen: narcissism and low tolerance for frustration.
Finally, it occurs to me to risk a hypothesis: perhaps one of the main features to analyze when evaluating the potential of a candidate is the presence of a low tolerance for frustration.
