In this work, through the use of a metaphorical language, a whole characterization of a set of characters that can be found in any organization is carried out and that makes it difficult to achieve their mission, while making a comparison between this type of entities and those that have achieved closeness to business excellence.
They say that when man decided to live in society and create his first companies, he began by studying his similar: the other animals. It was thus that he went deep into the African jungle and saw that:…
The lion sometimes with mane and others without them, served as the king of the herds, preferred to appear to be meek, humble, collaborative, as long as the others did what he wanted. He could bear that any animal would contradict him, but in the end obey him, however, if he felt in danger his crown was in anger, he roared like a lion and did not stop until he saw, who he considered his enemy, reduced to very little or nothing. The beast, dressed as a lamb, knew or appeared to know the power of the majority, so it was careful not to appear dangerous, while pretending to be participatory, it was as fierce inward as it was meek outward, it preferred to agree with outsiders than to defend his subjects,He considered it very important not to seek discord with other more powerful tribes that could eliminate it in a possible conflict. When he wanted to get away with it, he chose to convince individually that to do it collectively, maybe from him came the principle of divide and you will win, so, once he had convinced or confused each one, he sold the idea as approved by everyone.
The king of animals, he was not short in his roars even when he made an effort to make musical sounds, he spoke to everyone about the importance of paying taxes for survival, he exhorted to be moderate in expenses but he forgot to be, at the end of the day. out for something was the monarch. His loyalty to others lasted as long as the benefits they brought them, as soon as he smelled that his subjects were not willing to follow him, he remembered being a family of cats and ignored the past to hit his claw. He spent most of his time planning future hunts and new methods of accomplishing it, though he will later forget to control the results of the capture by finding himself inside his burrow busy with new plans or listening to the snake's charms.
Of this it is not known if it was a rattlesnake, a snake, a boa or simply a maja, because the same enchanted some with its whistles and dances as it bit others with its always hidden venom, loved to curl up in the lion's tail, this He assured him to stay close to the chorana, if there was one thing that was true for everyone it was his liking to rest, to dance to the sounds of the king and to stalk others to have to count later.
The wolf, ancestor of the dog, was characterized by being faithful to his friends and way of thinking, hardworking and capable of dragging others with his howls, but at the same time, stubborn, proud and confident, he was a friend of the lion while doing what He wanted to, but when he dared to think differently, he ended up being expelled from the group.
The parrot, seemed to have as a mission to entertain everyone with her stories and talks, she loved to make harangues in which no one believed but everyone had to hear, she knew how to take advantage of any failure of the others to immediately start her verbal process about it although she always took care of herself. not being the one that dealt with the corresponding measure, for her it was more important to seem than to be, the way that the end.
The elephant, a little more isolated and tired, had once occupied the position of the lion, but when its weight and size made it slow to live in tune with its time it ended up being replaced, then it became apathetic, indifferent, trying at all costs not looking for trouble, so he just regretted and agreed, for him everyone seemed to be right.
The mole adored the juice of fermented corn and the numbers, although in reality it was his cave companion who was in charge of the work with the abacuses, the function of announcing the results was reserved for him. He was addicted to expressing his opinion as long as it caught his attention and he did not look for problems.
The monkey was not always in the herd, but when he arrived he was immediately noticed by everyone for his jokes and debauchery, with them he loved the majority: the lion, the snake and even the ants themselves. He was not very prone to work. Over time he began to be rejected because he liked to leave banana peels everywhere with which it was very easy to slip and fall.
The giraffe, hardworking like few others, was one of the strictest observers of the rules, with her everything became slow since it had to be done according to the established rules, to communicate she needed two days in which the others consumed just minutes.
The ants were the ones who supported the entire community with their work and effort, although almost always as a reward they were exhorted to work more. The lion if they managed to fill a barn wanted two and even without reaching two he was already asking for three. It is true that not all of them worked equally, that some were lazy and other crazy ants, that without having reached the end of a task, they already wanted to start others and were always trying to break the rules.
Another work group was the crickets, they did not do much but they made sure that the little done was noticed, and if someone thought to protest their music then they would have chirping serenades.
The owl, always with its bad temper, rarely worked, it was dedicated to look for news from outside, from the other jungles, to play with the work of the others, and to bring new whistles to the snake.
The turtledove, was very hardworking and good at her own, rejected the majority because she believed herself different, it was impossible for her to work collectively, she adored criticism of others in order to disguise their intended differences.
All of the above would not be more than a simple story if many of today's companies were not full of characters like the previous ones, some of which will be analyzed below.
There are not a few managers, at any level, who act like pure lions even when they have received courses in leadership and human resource management where they have spoken to them about the power of empowerment. They insist on treating their workers as spare parts, they believe that the only important thing is the planning and definition of the methods and they ignore the strength of the motivation of the personnel, of the day-to-day control and man-to-man trying to achieve this through papers, behind the bureau or through the network. They ignore the value of personal integrity and fidelity to others, making promises that they will not keep later, making long speeches that everyone is obliged to hear but few believe in. They accept any change or taxation exposed from abroad without assessing the effects this will have on company personnel.They demand savings and efforts while filling the company with non-productive personnel and exceeding management or personal expenses that do not contribute to the collective effort. They love to be surrounded by people who always agree with them and never disagree with them because of what they place in the best positions, they give facilities to their faithful subjects and they get rid of anyone who does not want to dance to the beat of their music, they do not know the importance of differences as a source of development. They listen only to those who say what they want to hear.They give facilities to their faithful subjects and get rid of anyone who does not want to dance to the beat of their music. They do not know the importance of differences as a source of development. They listen only to those who say what they want to hear.They give facilities to their faithful subjects and get rid of anyone who does not want to dance to the beat of their music. They do not know the importance of differences as a source of development. They listen only to those who say what they want to hear.
Snakes are those who ascend the hierarchical pyramid, not thanks to their work abilities, but to the ability to allude to those who run them, they become the "carries and brings" information of everything that happens in the entity, they are the The most important source of top management feedback, this function steals your time so much that you lack the ability to be efficient at what you are supposed to do in the position for which you have been appointed. They are not able to carry out the criticism head-on, but they mask it with a pair of smiles, sandwiched it between flatteries or carry it out on behalf of others, while they are unable to accept any indication about themselves. When they want to succeed in imposing their wishes, they do not use their authority but invoke that of someone superior,In this way, they try to avoid damaging their level of acceptance by others.
There are not a few, those who once were and already prefer not to be, move away so as not to be noticed, they give up giving their contribution with the sole objective of living more comfortably and without seeking trouble, depriving others of enjoying their experience and knowledge, they feel resentful and therefore they become totally indifferent, in reality they are true elephants of return to the land that saw them born.
Wolves are not abundant, but one is always found, it would be magnificent that their species will increase in number, if not because their arrogance and pride, sometimes, leads them to make decisions that do not favor the collective, their stubbornness does not always It allows you to see what is the best strategy and once they make a decision they keep it regardless of the consequences.
The parrots insist that things are carried out to the letter even when said compliance harms the group to which they belong and they owe it, they lose credibility by abusing their verbiage, just as moles are recognized for their desire to be one of the first to give their opinions in meetings when their opinion does not compromise them and because of their silence when taking sides involves some danger.
The monkeys in their beginnings brighten the lives of others, but over time their spirit of intrigue is discovered, their double face in relationships and then they become a problem to achieve adequate group cohesion and alignment of values, because nobody trusts in them.
The owls, with their games and lack of attention at work, stimulate others not to work, are a source of discord with everyone, so they do not facilitate the unity of the group, just as snakes lack self-criticism and have plenty to criticize.
All the characters described above in one way or another, generally, occupy management positions, although as they are known, they are not the only ones because also in any company there are simple workers (giraffes) who try to follow what is established to the letter. in norms without sitting down to assess to what extent they become obsolete and slow down good performance; They lack creativity to propose improvements and make communication difficult due to their lack of adaptability to ever-changing circumstances and their lack of specificity.
Crickets are generally not the ones that work the most, but if they are the ones that protest the most, they are likely to improve their performance, but their level of self-sufficiency does not allow them to recognize their mistakes and thus deny their improvement, they do not admit poor evaluations yet. when for everyone they are the fairest.
Turtledoves do an excellent job, they are efficient and effective, they would be perfect if they did not have the desire to criticize everything and to hinder the work of the group, their good level of performance leads them to sometimes not accept their deficiencies, so they also they hinder any attempt to optimize their performance.
Fortunately, most ants generally work as hard as they are encouraged to do, they are the mainstay of any company and the main source of knowledge and creativity, but not all work equally, some of the most liberal ones want to break Norms, which, although not always good, facilitate innovation and development, although they spread enthusiasm, they not infrequently disappoint due to their lack of consistency and specificity in what they undertake.
If the characters will be presented in practice in such a pure and sharp way as described here, it would be very easy to identify and work with them, for the sake of human and organizational growth, but daily life is much richer than what is presented here, in fact, the traits of many of these characters are masked, mixed with each other or not always manifested with equal intensity. As more characters from these classes present themselves in a more difficult organization, it will be more difficult for this organization to show and maintain a competitive performance.
Companies that have come close to business excellence or are tending to constant improvement have achieved this primarily because they have been able to free themselves from the burden that usually constitutes most of these stereotypes. These have achieved the existence of a successful leadership based above all on the personal integrity of their leaders, on the consistency between what they say and what they do, on their confidence in themselves and consequently in the collective, which is embodied in the application of a truly participatory direction and a sound management of human resources, in recognition that more important than the plans, procedures and standards are the training, motivation and encouragement of the improvement of all the personnel, in the internalization of which better to do than say,that communication is more effective to the extent that it is more concrete, in fostering a climate where malicious comments do not have a place. Where each position occupied is in correspondence with what is done and not with what is said or who is.
The staff of these companies do not withdraw but agree rather stimulate differences and discrepancies, generally self-criticism abounds more than criticism. The experience does not depart, it is used. The rules are broken as soon as the existence of a new way to do so is demonstrated. Recognition of the possibilities for improvement is a constant for everyone in their work.
conclusion
As a conclusion of all that has been said, this table is presented where some of the different types of characters that can coexist in a company are exposed, as well as their characteristics and consequences.
| Characterization of the characters of a mediocre entity. | ||
| Characters | characteristics | Consequences. |
| Lion | · Generally holds important management positions.
· Can't stand being contradicted. · Lack of correspondence between what he says and what he does. · Has communication difficulties. · It focuses more on planning than control. · Prioritize techniques to human relations. · It prioritizes external provisions to the interests of its workers. · Lack of personal integrity. |
· Low credibility.
· Low staff motivation. · Little level of leadership. · Low group cohesion. · Low level of control. · Excess of indirect expenses. |
| Snake | · Lack of personal integrity.
· Tending to allude. · Prone not to work. · Willing to comment. |
· Communication deficiencies.
· Low motivation. · Low performance efficiency. · Lacking moral authority. |
| Wolf | · True to his ideas and friends.
· Worker and capable. · Stubborn and confident. · Leadership. |
· Efficient and effective.
· Possibility of developing wrong actions. |
| Parrot | · Chatty.
· Demagogue. · Calculator. · Moralist. · Extremist. |
· Low motivation.
· Poor communication. |
| Elephant | · Passive.
· Endowed with experience. · Coward. |
· Low motivation.
· Low credibility. · Little chance of taking advantage of the experience. |
| Mole | · Low willingness to work.
· Coward. · Talkative. · Calculator. Demagogue. |
· Communication deficiencies.
· Low performance efficiency. |
| Monkey | · Funny.
· Calculator. · Lack of integrity. |
· Low motivation.
· Low efficiency. |
| Giraffe. | · Lack of concreteness in communication.
· Extremist in the fulfillment of the norms. |
· Communication deficiencies.
· Deficiencies in group work and innovation. |
| Ants | · Workers.
· Innovative. · Disorganized. |
· Lack of specificity in some tasks. |
| Cricket | · Little worker.
· Self-sufficient. · Not self-critical. |
· Deficiencies in management and evaluation.
· Communication deficiencies. · Little chance of improvement. · Low motivation. |
| Owl. | · Little worker.
· Communication deficiencies. · Lack of personal integrity. |
· Low motivation.
· Difficulties to work collectively. · Low performance efficiency. |
| The turtledove | · Hardworking and Capable.
· Hypercritical. |
· Difficulties to work collectively.
· Communication deficiencies. |
Starting from the previous table, another can be built comparing the entities in which such elements abound and the entities of excellence.
| Comparison between entities. | ||
| Parameters. | Mediocre. | Tending towards improvement. |
| Communication level | Deficient | Improved. |
| Motivation level | Low | Tall |
| Team work. | Poor | High |
| Possibilities for improvement | Low | high |
| Performance efficiency | Low | high |
| Management leadership | Low | Tall |
| Participation level of workers | Low | high |
| Performance evaluation effectiveness | Low | high |
