After the desired economic prosperity, we must review business management in Spain. We would have to ensure the most suitable strategic and tactical decisions, as well as the maximum contribution of managers and workers… But, what are the best practices in relation to the management of people in the emerging economy? Without forgetting the uniqueness of each organization, it may be convenient for those of us who analyze, defend or incorporate management models to contrast or tune our beliefs and bets, especially in two aspects: the consideration of human capital and the role of the HR departments.
At a time when we are forced to question almost everything, and with strikingly modest levels of productivity and competitiveness in our country, it seems appropriate to review the role that corresponds to leaders on the path of prosperity. It is possible that there is still an entrepreneur who relativizes the capital weight of people - the idea of human capital - because some experts (Tom Peters, for example) have already alerted us to the difference between what is proclaimed in this regard throughout the world. world, and what is really thought by executives and managers.
Recall that the lack of managerial quality in the public and private sectors has been denounced, while, on the contrary, Spanish workers appear among those with the highest level of training within the OECD; In addition, we have unemployed youth that Germany has recently decided to count on (early 2011). It could be said, yes, that we have a good dose of human capital waiting to express ourselves in catalytic environments, in environments of excellent leadership.
It would be necessary to review the management of our organizations, not only to eradicate, where appropriate, the excessive and unpunished greed of some powerful, but to ensure the success of executive decisions and the maximum contribution of human capital; in short, to ensure collective intelligence on possible spurious interests. Without a doubt we have prosperous and excellent companies with exemplary managers, companies in which the workers are committed, develop and feel satisfied; But this is not always the case… Let's ask ourselves what are the keys to success in management.
A Spanish current of business thinking
Some outstanding entrepreneurs and executives could tell us about these keys, although it is more likely that our experts do it, who more daily present their points of view in universities and business schools. The observer has it easy because in Spain, although there are other groups of experts, we have a well-known club called Top Ten Business Experts (TTBE) and groups more than a hundred leading experts (the interested reader can go to the corresponding website to identify them); In addition, the thinking of this club is linked to a current that has been called the Spanish School of Management, as I could read months ago in the prologue of a new book on people management (a book that is revealing and to which I will refer right away).
It should be noted that, if they are not always in the Senior Management of companies, many women do appear in this selection of Business Experts and it should not be a coincidence: Joaquina Fernández, Isabel Sancho, Olga Albaladejo, Ana Aceituno, Nuria Chinchilla, María Luisa Lara, Viviane Launer, Nathalie Detry, Silvia Escribano, Araceli Mendieta, Catalina Hoffmann, Laura Cantizano, Elena Gómez, Maite Sáenz, María García, María Manzano, Aránzazu Montes…
In a document found on the Internet, the well-known expert Marcos Urarte places the consultants Javier Fernández Aguado, Luis Huete, Pilar Jericó, José Aguilar as champions of this current… We have also read, by Blanca Fernández-Galiano, CEO of the TTBE, in Reference to a conference held in February 2010: "This Symposium deserves to be remembered as the definitive drive towards internationalization of the Spanish School of Management, through its greatest exponent, our beloved Javier Fernández Aguado."
In effect, this trend shows us led by the well-known expert and magnificent speaker Fernández Aguado, and associated with the “exclusive” TTBE club, “business thinking platform” that does not hide its desire to constitute “the point of reference for the manager and the Human Resources professional ”. These experts, with their books and articles, certainly want to be a reference for many professionals, and they are visible in numerous print and electronic media, perhaps amplified by the TTBE label.
However, this should not lead us to relativize or prefer messages from outside this solid initiative. I believe that in our country there are many other prestigious experts from whom to receive teaching, even if they do not organize in groups, or choose others; in fact, some well-known experts belonged to the Top Ten club and then, for some reason, preferred not to continue (I think without losing their solid prestige for it). But we might even get some good advice from lesser-known and solid consultants - there are - as companies can still have their own valuable experiences and learn from both failure and success.
Perhaps we may be failing, above all, in strategic management, in business decision-making, in the intelligence or excellence of organizations…; But undoubtedly we must insist on what is often said: we waste human capital. That seems to me, and the reader can always agree or disagree. It is true that great continuous training efforts are deployed, but it can happen, yes, that the knowledge, faculties, strengths, abilities, etc., of the technical professionals are not taken advantage of later. It is not surprising that our experts refer in a special way to people management, leadership, motivation…, surely in search of better levels of productivity and professional satisfaction.
The reader should know that what I will end up underlining is the need to agree guidelines for a better use of human capital, and also to review the role of the Human Resources areas. These are not trivial questions, I think: attunement around human capital in the knowledge economy, and updating the HR function to that end. It is not my place to participate in the experts' debate, but I do think it is urgent to address it; if they decide to join me for a few minutes, they will see why soon.
The book in which it spoke (Javier Fernández Aguado did it in the prologue) of an emerging Spanish School of Management, is by Professor Gabriel Ginebra and has recently appeared recommended by José Antonio Carazo, from the editorial of the prestigious magazine Capital Humano. Its title is “ Incompetent Management ” and the subtitle, “An innovative approach to people management”. I confess that I came to think that incompetence was about managers and remembered Peter's principle; but I immediately interpreted that it was especially aimed at subordinates, because in the first promotional information that came to me it was said, among other things: “Be patient with the tasks of teaching, correcting and thanking the work. With these oxen you have to plow ”.
I was shocked - I confess that negatively - this promotional message; but I was also immediately puzzled by the success of the book. It seems a success of the publisher Libros de Cabecera: good people have emerged in and outside Spain. It undoubtedly contributes to unveiling and spreading a current of thought and much is said about it, apart from formulating specific teachings to face certain incompetence, when they appear. I myself, with some dose of the critical analysis Dewey told us about, have referred to the text in several articles; Both because I have reservations about some memes formulated, and because, given my writing on these topics, they encouraged me to do so with fluent storylines.
I think that Geneva often puts the finger rightly on the sore, and that the text is intense but easy to read; however, some general premises of her speech could stop the reader, as they stopped me. Each author certainly has experiences and foundations that legitimize their messages, but these paragraphs of mine respond to their intended fit in the Spanish current of thought to which I am referring.
I do not know if the author intended to contribute with his book to School, or simply to make known his interesting experience in the field of people management (or perhaps, as I suspect, to generate a healthy debate); the fact is that, as Fernández Aguado maintains, "Gabriel is an outstanding representative of that group of authors who are included in this movement, pending formal structuring, which has been classified as the Spanish School of Management. " Shortly after the book was published, its author joined the Top Ten BE initiative, and apparently generated more support than debate; But let's go now to the messages that I found especially relevant and revealing.
A selection of premises on people management
I wanted to select, from the book, the messages most related to the consideration of human capital in the 21st century economy, and to the role of the Human Resources areas. These are aspects that have particularly interested me, perhaps because I have recently been spending time reflecting on a certain, perhaps timely, reengineering of continuous training in companies. Go ahead then.
- "We are all incompetent because we can be improved, because we are always in the process of learning. "
This was one of the first statements I stopped at. If the reader allows me a personal memory, my grandmother used to say that a cook always has clean hands because she is continually washing them, and I, the child replied, said that maybe it was because she always had them dirty… So, for Always learning, we can be seen as incompetent, although perhaps also competent.
Of course we must all learn continuously: there is no doubt; But there are also other points of view, even in Spain, that do not link this constant learning to incompetence but, above all, to the continuous advance of the fields of knowledge. Indeed, lifelong learning is preached, so to speak, from all religions, although not necessarily - I would say - because we are incompetent. Of course, everything depends on what we want to understand by competition and incompetence.
The bottle may actually look half empty or half full; however, we may often miss the focus of the task, the job, the function for which we would be competent or incompetent. Happily, the author feels competent to build the science of managing people, even though he may feel incompetent for other tasks. It would seem that we all do something wrong and also something right, but the message, by way of plural self-criticism, is that "we are all incompetent". If, as we have also been told, nobody is perfect and we are sinners, sooner or later we would have to admit that we are also incompetent.
- "People Management is fundamentally Incompetent Management… I aspire to build a true science of managing people, even if it is not exact science. "
Yes, incompetence seems to be universalized, to immediately focus on subordinates. In addition, it seems to point to a hopeless incompetence (there was no alternative for the oxen those of Uncle Pedro), which must be scientifically managed. However, there are other experts in our country who perceive sufficient talent in technical professionals, although their bosses do not accuse, cultivate and take advantage of it to a sufficient extent.
- "The key to better results is getting more out of the competition than the competition, or, in other words, growing talent from those who don't have it."
It must have this idea that it is transferred to us, although one, in the devil's advocate, is left wondering what happens when a subordinate shows technical talent for his work (perhaps it is more frequent than we are assuming). It could be said that he did not have it but that the boss, a great conjurer, has taken it from where there was no…. This malicious reflection occurs to me because, also from the same current of thought, it has been proclaiming that the boss-leader is “the one who manages to extract the best from his collaborators” (that is, if one gives the best of himself, it could always be because its boss-leader scientifically extracted it).
Successful or not, what I am trying to say is that perhaps, fifty years after McGregor's Theory Y, it would be necessary to attribute a greater role to the knowledge worker in the administration of his own talent, once the junior stage has been passed; greater role in the management of its capital resources after the desired results. Surely the postulates of our experts are solid, and will overcome the doubts of any improvised devil's advocate, but perhaps we should avoid the boss capitalizing on the merits of the worker, the training area capitalizing on his knowledge, the quality area capitalizing on his dedication. …
- “Around us - together with good qualities - we cannot hide the superficiality, the absent-mindedness, the haste. The cheek that increasingly gives less and asks for more… and complains about it "
The "repertoire of incompetence" that was displayed, already visible in the book's index, also included the theoretician, the suffocated, the pasota, the distracted… Apparently, when speaking of incompetence one points to these kinds of things (attitudes, they look like). So we have to get the message: attitudes are failing and we should ask ourselves why. There could be deficiencies in professional development, or perhaps other causes, also localized in the work environment (here I recall what Plácido Fajardo, an expert from the TTBE whose reflections usually interest me: “Your attitude is chosen by you”).
On the other hand, equally apart from this book but from the Spanish School itself, the boss-leader is described as "the one who makes his collaborators want to do what they have to do"; that is, from the presumption that the subordinate, in addition to being incompetent, would do his job reluctantly, apparently, if he did not have a motivating boss. There are also those who think that this same conception of the chief-leader, if known to them, would already, at the outset, significantly discourage subordinate-followers.
- "We have to deal with incompetence, not only because it is more numerous, but because competition hardly needs to be managed"
Other experts inside and outside our country agree on a sensible self-management of the competent workers and even preach empowerment; But, overall, I think they interpret competition and incompetence more in line with the competency movement, and point more to knowledge and skills. (Perhaps in Spain attitudes are especially lacking, and a kind of foreman may be needed, perhaps modernized with the nimbus of leader. This seems to be telling us, between one and other statements made by our experts).
- "Managing people is awkward… People are complicated, they have sex, age and character. "
This statement also seems revealing; not so much for what is said - unquestionable -, as for what is omitted. Sex, age and character we all had hundreds of thousands of years ago, as my cat also has today and those of Uncle Pedro must have had the oxen. It should be remembered, however, that our brain development gave way, for example, to the forms of psychic entropy that today cause us so much unease and make us perhaps more complicated: frustration, guilt, loneliness, adversity, mistrust, envy, the challenge, the indignation, the options, the shame of oneself and others…
As Csikszentmihalyi reminded us, this evolution of consciousness - sorry for the "theoretical", perhaps digressive and excessive - also gave rise to roles and specializations, to the development of faculties and abilities, and, ultimately, to the complexity of being human. Perhaps the experts (I remember TO Davenport now) who, throughout the world, are committed to human capital, mainly notice in people their intelligence, their strengths, their creativity, their psychic energy, and technical knowledge that often surpass those of their bosses. If necessary, these parameters are enhanced so that they prevail over others and everything seems more professional.
For some reason (attitudes, age, character…), in Spain managing people is, as we are told, uncomfortable; But perhaps - in his defense it occurs to me - it is possible to link this fact to his own perception of them. Apart from the applauded occurrence of the oxen, they seem to perceive them, first of all, as human beings (and therefore with sensitive imperfections), and not so much as bearers of human capital (and therefore valuable for business). Perhaps, someone should bring virtue to the vicious circle that is drawn to us…
- “HR managers have no process mindset. Human resources and business seem like worlds apart. ”
It seems that the role of HR professionals, who have surely been dedicating themselves to what was entrusted to them by Senior Management, is questioned throughout the world, and they have been perceived in tune with the famous duck test (that is, He has identified them for what they did.) It is denounced, yes, that the HR-Training areas seem to be blind in relation to the business, and also to the particular profiles of each worker and position.
In the book it seems to be maintained that it is the boss who is closest to the positions and the real people, and that it is the Human Resources department that perceives individuals as simple human resources… Perhaps this is often or generally, although it would have to be seen, in each case, in whom, if in someone, does the individual find any empathy…
- “It is also not an objective of Human Resources to increase training, or motivation, or integration. Giving more training can backfire if you don't focus on the demands of the job, and integrating more can create tension. ”
Apparently, in training one could be sinning in excess, in addition to the lack of quality-effectiveness also repeatedly reported. In short, the training of subordinates seems to be demanded, in short. I found it disturbing that “integrating more can create tensions”, although surely I did not know how to interpret this message from the author (perhaps not others).
- "The person directly responsible for the training, promotion and motivation of employees is their hierarchical superior, and not the personnel director or human resources director… Every good manager must be a teacher, in the double sense of the expression: teacher as someone who knows and teacher as someone who knows how to teach ”.
It insists on questioning the function of Human Resources in favor of the bosses, and the figure of the motivating and empowering boss is also underlined; However, there seem to be other experts, inside and outside of Spain, who place knowledge workers in the most direct responsibility for their own learning, and thus explain the so-called informal learning, such as equally widespread self-learning.
There are also those who think that, if the chief executive does not need to accumulate the knowledge of the entire management committee in order to teach his work to the directors, neither, in the emerging knowledge economy, the manager must accumulate the technical knowledge of all its managed. But there is no doubt that here we must insist on the uniqueness of each company, as well as on their right to hire the intelligence or obedience of the employees. (Perhaps, by the way, it is cheaper to hire obedience, although it may not always be more profitable…).
- "The day you are not able to teach those who depend on you - the day you stop surprising them - you will have lost a significant part of your authority as boss. "
I was also struck by this, although it is consistent with the figure of the chief-teacher advocated by our experts; I was surprised because perhaps every day there are more people whose technical baggage is more solid than that of their hierarchical superiors. Perhaps the moral authority of these should be shifting towards professionalism, correct decisions and excellence in management, to leave permanent technical updating to subordinates; Each company is unique, but those who value their bosses should be asked.
Weeks ago I learned (TV, press…) that some people lower their profile in the curriculum because they believe that this way it will be less difficult to find a job (until now the profile used to be inflated, and this news has attracted attention). Indeed, it may be important for the bosses to outwit their subordinates, and they may even see a threat to the contrary; but perhaps we should not put limits on the lifelong learning of knowledge workers. The fact is that, from the stream of experts, the moral authority added by knowledge is underlined, and it is good that we know and consider it.
- "Reprimand and emotionally tough communications are part of the good people manager's repertoire of tools… The goal of a good reprimand is to correct and educate… We should try to get reprimands in private and praise in public. "
Yes, in truth the figure of the boss-teacher is advocated, which surely fits well with that of the subordinate-student. Other experts seem to defend, off the stage of trades and apprentices, the professionalism of all, each with their curricular trajectory and their technical or managerial tasks, and assuming a leading role in their work. Each company of course chooses its hierarchical relationship model (boss-teacher, foreman, coach, boss-manager, boss-leader, service leadership…), although the knowledge economy seems to suggest specially adjusted solutions.
- "We want to remove incompetence from its most pejorative nuance. In the long term it is not the brightest who succeed, but the average talents who routinely overcome laziness. ”
Surely diligence is a value, and neither laziness nor procrastination. It seems appropriate to open up space for the less talented, and it is good to do it, because talent had become a thundering buzzword; However, perhaps we should always welcome talent, as other experts inside and outside our country suggest. Perhaps many, managers and workers, we have some hidden, and therefore lack of cultivation and use.
One would wish that attention was not directed only to managerial talent, but included that of technical professionals in their respective fields. On the other hand, incompetence seems to be linked with “average talents”, or perhaps with mediocrity… The interested reader should come to the book, to better interpret this and other messages.
Adhesions
I am aware that the points of view of other Spanish consultants, or business school teachers, do not entirely coincide with these pronouncements prefaced by Javier Fernández Aguado (“maximum exponent of the School”); but it must be considered, however, that the book appears explicitly recommended by well-known experts inside and outside the TTBE platform, such as N. Chinchilla, JA Carazo, L. Huete, A. Ubierna, O. Amat, F. Ponti, L. Torras, E. Masifern, R. Peralba, JM Arribas, F. López…, not to mention some “think tank” (Know Square), some university and numerous print and electronic media (La Vanguardia, Executive Excellence, Human Capital, Digital HR…). Undoubtedly, these are postulates that will reach the participants in the master's degrees in more than a few business schools.
All the authors just quoted, each with their own language, could perhaps have told us the same things and perhaps they have at some point; but they have shown their immediate and determined support for the celebrated verbalization offered by the author, and have recommended the corresponding reading. Gestión de Incompetentes has been chosen by Know Square as one of the 12 most relevant books of 2010. It could be one more book, but it has gained significant support, numerous applauses in the various acts of presentation, and for this reason it has especially caught my attention. It appears to be truly a "bedside book"; I have found very few blog comments that have shown any dissent.
If I interpret the support displayed well, we can consider, yes, that there is a current that is somewhat representative of Spanish thought on Management, which generalizes incompetence in our country and decisively focuses on that of the workers (I cannot hide my modest disagreement here); who denounces negative attitudes in them; who defends the figure of the boss-teacher who rewards and punishes, and whose moral authority links with the precise knowledge to teach his work every day to subordinates; which seems to show, in sum, a modest consideration of the human capital carried by the workers ("With these oxen you have to plow"). Some reader may feel, like me, against the current, and perhaps should hold onto the shore…, and others, more aligned with this line of thought, will nod convinced.
Because workers are incompetent - he comes to tell us - a well-thought-out practice of people management is needed, with an innovative approach. This science would have to be assumed by the bosses and little would contribute to the areas of human resources, which are drawn to us as a "world apart. " According to an extract from Geneva itself that I read on the Aefol website, "four basic tools: teaching, rewarding, punishing and thanking" were to be used scientifically. (Nor will there be anyone who thinks that, if continuous training nurtured the competence of workers, then there would be no need for such a practice of managing incompetents, nor would it be preached in books or business schools…).
However, I have to insist - I have promised to do it - that things are seen differently by other experts, also of considerable prestige, who also demand, although they do not claim it, to feel in tune with the realities and needs of Spanish companies. In fact, as an observer I wanted to do a kind of poll, encouraging the pronouncement of the members of the TTBE club themselves. In this regard, although I do not consider myself authorized to give formality to what was informal, I would point out some diversity of ideas (surely healthy) in this "platform for business thinking", in this "Spanish School of Management". Perhaps I should add that some member has stated that they have not heard of such a School, and that only six of them have left my message unanswered.
Conclusions
I believe, yes, that premises should be tuned around the cultivation and use of human capital, and the consequent role of the Human Resources areas in the knowledge economy. If any expert agrees, I trust that you will decide to contribute to the debate. In my opinion, we also have valuable references from authors from all over the world, on both related subjects. I had been warning about a great coincidence regarding the growing importance of human capital…, until I made my own particular reading of the book to which I have referred; but it did come however perceiving an intense debate in relation to the role of Human Resources.
The Human Resources function is truly being "reviewed" by prestigious experts from this and other countries. It can be thought, yes, that these areas have been dedicating themselves, as they should be, to the functions entrusted by the Senior Management of companies; but they could also be assigned a more strategic and effective role, more related to organizational or collective intelligence, more in line with the value of human capital. Sure they could take it. In fact, I remember reading about the figure of the Chief Human Capital Officer in companies from other countries. In ours, this emerging Spanish School of Management seems to be proposing to reduce this function ("It is not a Human Resources objective…").
We all have our points of view, our memes and genes, our mental models; But perhaps we can agree on the need to make the most of the available human capital, as well as to nurture it through the efforts of continuous training. One believes, for example, that the HR area (or perhaps better identified with the label of "Human Capital") would reinforce its relevance if it safeguarded organizational intelligence…, but I will be attentive to the debate when it manifests itself. As I just read, Lourdes Molinero (of the TTBE) recently declared that the HR function will disappear, as we know it today; that this function must work to make people believe in themselves again. I would add that, to this end, it would be convenient in your case to stop stealing the limelight from the subordinates;move from capitalizing leadership to catalyst.
We will see what happens with the Human Resources areas, but surely we should not allow ourselves the luxury of valuing obedience more than the intelligence of the workers; to take away the knowledge of the subordinate that the boss does not possess; to confuse commitment with complicity; to subordinate common sense to procedure; to deploy futile efforts of continuous formation; to reduce the skilled worker to the role of follower of a supposed leader… Perhaps the desired levels of productivity and competitiveness pass, in the era of knowledge, by catalysing the maximum expression of human capital.
Thank you for your attention, as I must also thank Gabriel Ginebra for the invitation to comment in an argumented way on the premises of his celebrated book (I hope I have met, to some degree, Gabriel, your expectations of controversy). Your ideas are welcome as those of other authors, as long as we ensure their suitability before incorporating them, if applicable, in each company to the science or art of managing people. Also, I appreciate your feedback to people who have known this text of mine before its publication, and who have sent me comments or silences; I have extracted valuable meanings from both. What matters is not my reflections as an observer, but those of the experts who enjoy the predicament; I will be attentive to them.
What to do if we live surrounded by incompetents but we only talk about skills?
