Many students of the Leadership phenomenon agree that the quality of leadership within the organization is a key factor for its survival. Now, if we look at how each of these authors calls “what it takes to develop in an individual so that they can perform effectively as a true leader, which in turn affects the quality of their performance, we find a great variety of terms and definitions, although the essence of the content is the same. In this article, some of the names presented by the different authors are specified, and the relevance that this has from a conceptual and methodological point of view is also emphasized.
In the different theoretical approaches to the phenomenon of leadership, it can be seen that the different authors project a look at the subject from different angles, trying to incorporate a new element in their path. In all this trajectory it can also be seen that to refer to "what defines a leader as such, as well as what it requires to develop in them", some of these authors call him leader characteristics ", others call it" traits ”, several define it as a set of attributes, and for others they are habits or abilities.
However, although in this sense there is a lack of consensus (as in some other aspects that are not currently under discussion), on the other hand, there seems to be a considerable degree of agreement regarding the idea that the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of an organization is largely determined by the quality of its leaders, an idea that was pointed out by Peiró (1995), to which is also added the criterion of Shultz (1978) when he points out that practically half of the organizations they fail in their first years of life and that only 1/3 of these exceed five years of existence, attributing the causes of this failure to faulty leadership in most cases.
In my own opinion, this quality, to which Peiró and Shultz referred is in turn, and to a large extent determined, by a set of characteristics, habits, attributes or abilities (so to speak) that the leader must possess, (regardless of the incidence of other factors) and that are likely to develop.
On the other hand, I consider that precision in these questions is of great importance, both from a conceptual point of view and from a methodological point of view. From a conceptual point of view, because it demands, first, to know which are the most used denominations or terms to establish what it is “required” to develop as a leader in a person and the definitions that the different authors make of them; and second, to assume and define, from our position as researchers, that denomination or term that is considered most inclusive for the purposes of research. From the methodological point of view, the relevance lies in the fact that, depending on the term or denomination assumed,and from their corresponding operational definitions (which ultimately are those that allow the diagnosis to be made in practice), a list of attributes, abilities or habits can be drawn up, and consequently, the corresponding evaluation instruments can be selected.
For these reasons (or others very particular to any researcher) I consider that it may be very useful to assess which are the most frequent terms and concepts that the different authors use to define what is “what distinguishes leaders and what requires development. in them ”. I propose to deal with the subject in this space.
In the literature, we find that many authors state in various terms the “characteristics” (to name it somehow) that a leader must have and develop in order to perform as such, and that appear associated with success in this performance.
As already mentioned, terms such as abilities, mega-abilities, habits, attributes, lines of action, talents, basic ingredients, disciplines, among others, are used. On the other hand, each author, from his point of view, classifies one or the other concept differently. What for some vision is the personal vision-mission-life plan, for others it is corporate vision and a part of them considers it as the vision that is shared between the leader and his collaborators.
According to Bennis and Nanus (1995), there are four key areas of competence that are specified in four strategies for effective leadership. Regarding the first: attention through vision, the authors define it as "creating a sight".
To choose a course, the leader must develop a "mental image" in relation to a desirable and possible future for the organization. This image, which can be called vision, can be as vague as a dream or as clear as a mission. It is to have the image of a condition that is more desirable and of course that is better than the existing situation. The vision must articulate a realistic, credible and attractive projection of the future for the organization and for the people who work in them.
According to these authors, when an organization has a clear concept of its purpose of course and its future, and when these images are widely shared by all its members, they are capable of carrying out their own roles, both within the organization and within the organization. society of which they are part. Only in this way, they specify, will psycho-social rewards be received. (Bennis and Nanus, 1995)
Other authors from their perspective in this regard, also emphasize the importance of vision.
Robert Fritz (1996) states that an organization advances when there is a clear and widely understood vision. This creates a tension between the real and the individual, pushing people to work together to reduce the distance between them.
For his part, Robert Starratt (1995) emphasizes the importance of institutionalizing the vision, adding that "it does not matter how inspiring it sounds on paper, since the dream will dry up unless it takes concrete forms in policies, programs and procedures".
In some research conducted by Jhon Kotter in the past decade, based on observations made by companies such as Landmark Communications, Ford, General Motors, British Airways and Eastern Airlines, he found that one of the "eight causes of failure" in certain companies was that they underestimated the vision.
In a video tape produced by the Chart House Learning Corporations in 1990 (regarded as a pioneering consulting firm in strategic exploration) and titled "The Power of a Vision," its presenter and author Joel Arthur Baker, President of Infinity Limited, INC, affirms that a vision of the future without action is simply a dream, that an action without vision is meaningless and that a vision put into practice can change the world.
According to Covey (1989) the second habit of highly effective people is to start with an end in mind, a habit that reflects personal leadership and fully satisfies the need to find meaning in their own existence. Covey claims that the power of a vision is incredible.
Professor of International Business and Organizational Behavior at the International Institute for Managament Development (IMD) in Lausanne, Switzerland Josef J Di Stefano in research published in March 2001, concludes that one of the dimensions involved in the success of leaders is the vision, which is communicated by the leader and must be shared by the members of the organization.
This communication should be done with optimism for the future, and with strong expressions of confidence and enthusiasm.
Mario Borghino (1998) states that "when you have a purpose, you develop what is called" selective perception "in Psychology: when you see clearly what you want, you begin to see opportunities that you did not see before".
For Senge (1998) vision discipline is not an idea, although it may be inspired by it. However, if it is so convincing as to obtain the support of more than one person, it ceases to be an abstraction, it becomes palpable and people see it as if it existed. He also states that few human forces are as powerful as a vision, since it provides concentration and energy for organizational learning and arouses the commitment of many people because it reflects their personal vision… The visions are stimulating, they create spark and excitement that take the organization above the mundane… It modifies people's relationships with the company, since the company is not "theirs", but ours… It is the first step to allow people who professed mutual mistrust, start working together.
Lastly, he points out that there are no smart organizations without a shared vision, without the search for a goal that people want to achieve, since the vision sets an all-encompassing goal, and provides a rudder to keep the learning process on track when pressures are mounting (Senge, 1998)
For all the authors mentioned above, the generation of future visions by the leader is of utmost importance, and it is in the opinion of many that I agree with, the first thing that should distinguish a leader. Now, all this is said easy but I consider that in reality it is not.
From my point of view, to perceive or affirm that a person is "capable" of generating a vision of the future, it is necessary to consider the time factor, in which I may also be coinciding with the opinion of others. For example: a manager may have a very clear image or idea regarding the direction her organization should take, or where she would like to guide it and work accordingly. However, I consider that the perception of tangible results by others (and the subject that generated it), during certain periods of time, is what indicates that the vision that guides them in terms of achieving these results is well channeled within the organization, that is, in the desired direction.
This, from my point of view, is what ultimately reveals that there exists in the manager (or another determined person) the referred “capacity to generate visions”. Until then, we can only affirm, at a certain moment, that the subject is the carrier of a set of elements associated with the ability to generate visions.
Kenneth Blanchard (2001) states that the leader faces the constant challenge of developing a set of skills and talents or gifts, necessary to drive the processes of change and influence the direction and magnitude of it. Because of this, he maintains that, before being able to effectively exercise leadership over others, the leader must learn to lead himself and develop a series of skills that allow him to direct and evaluate the progress of that development. For this author, the true leader is the one who designs and develops actions that allow him to self-educate and perfect himself in human virtues, with which he will be serving as a model for others to seek to develop and perform with greater efficiency and quality both at the level personal as well as organizational. Based on those ideas,The author points out some talents and abilities that in his opinion leaders should develop in different areas of their lives:
1. Talents and Personal Skills: includes self-confidence, self-criticism, objectivity and firmness.
2. Talents and Relationship Skills: includes communication, serenity and transparency, perception and sensitivity, empathy, delegation and negotiation.
3. Talents and Team Management Skills: includes the clear definition of the mission and values, the definition of objectives and achievements, the management of meetings, the leadership presence and institutional actions.
The ability or talent of communication and conviction, referred to by this author, coincides with the second key area of competence enunciated by Bennis and Nanus (1995) which is precisely communication, and which the latter define as the leader's ability to influence and organize meanings for members of an organization.
According to these authors, when a leader communicates "meanings" at all levels of the organization, he is creating a learning community, which in turn contributes to its effectiveness.
On the other hand, they consider that the leader communicates an irrefutable lucidity in relation to what he wants from his followers, which, more than being a mere communication of data and information, is about the way they are presented and the meaning thereof.
Regarding this, it can be said that the leader must really be a communicator par excellence, since communication is the way to unite and lead the group. He is in charge of transmitting the vision to the rest of the members of the organization, impressing optimism on this and encouraging them to overcome obstacles, for which he must master various ways and techniques of communicating.
Continuing with the purpose of this article we find that Larry Spears, head of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, who has delved into the research carried out by RK Greenleaf on servant leadership, and which is based on a transformative approach to life and work In the long term, it concludes that 10 values must be developed in leaders:
1. Listen: in order to identify the will of the group.
2. Empathy: to understand what others want.
3. Healing: knowing how to remedy the damages suffered by others.
4. Consciousness: striving to stay awake based on what is happening around you.
5. Persuasion: use more persuasion to trust more in this capacity than in exercising command.
6. Conceptualize: ability to take on big challenges that overcome daily reality.
7. Forecasting: ability to predict the probable outcome of a situation.
8. Administration: assume the commitment to manage well to serve the needs of others.
9. Growth: the leader trusts in the value of people and is committed to developing it.
10. Community: sensitivity to build a community in the organization.
In subsequent investigations to those carried out with Burt Nanus, Warren Bennis (1999) continued with the examination of the qualities that define leaders, and within the results obtained, he points out that leaders stand out for having 7 essential attributes:
1. Technical Competence: capacity for business and mastery of a specific branch.
2. Conceptual Skills: ease or ability for abstraction and strategic thinking.
3. Leave Traces: bequeath to others a trajectory of results.
4. Social or Interpersonal Skills: Communication skills, to delegate and motivate.
5. Sensitivity: Ability to identify and cultivate talent.
6. Judgment: to make difficult decisions in a short time and with imprecise and / or ambiguous data.
7. Character: personal qualities that define who we are.
If we compare these attributes with the key areas of competence that the author pointed out together with Nanus (1995) we find that there is one that remains constant: communication, although this case is referred by Bennis within a broader category such as social skills..
Pausing for a moment on the second attribute, which in my opinion is linked to the individual's intellectual capacity, and although some consider that it is not very necessary to take it into account in leaders, I consider that it is of great importance.
Authors like Levy Leboyer (1997) clearly illustrate the position I hold. For this author, intelligence, understood as the "aptitude to identify a problem, analyze it and use this analysis in order to solve it effectively, plays a fundamental role when it comes to solving complex tasks". For this author, the intellectual qualities are increasingly important, as the technological process eliminates the simple tasks and makes the others more arduous. On the other hand, he argues that in one way or another, all intellectual activities oblige to continually learn new data, procedures and skills, where the ability to learn and mainly to acquire new skills is strongly linked to intelligence.He further argues this point of view, quoting Hunter and Hunter (1984) who refer that "intelligence is also linked to the subject's ability to take advantage of the experiences it undergoes to build competencies".
All of the above led the author in question to conclude that: "the more gifted an individual is, the more easily he will enrich his report of competencies in line with the experiences he has faced".
On this same point, Borghino refers: “decisions cannot be made if they are not previously preceded by quiet reflection, awareness and taking the pulse that is required from one moment to another, and the great leaders possess this virtue to reflection… leaders have a great capacity for abstraction that will separate them from the noise of conflict, synthesize the whole, see the needle in the haystack, notice not the disorder caused by the hurricane but its origin… know what beats behind a problem, learning that behind this there are a series of constants to be solved, because to understand "the causes" it is necessary to reflect, abstract, recognize and remain calm in the apparent crisis… and thanks to the leader's ability to do all this is that big plans can be developed,find the best solutions and visualize what the naked eye cannot see… ”Mario Borghino (1998).
Woodcok and Francis (1997) list a number of leadership skills and abilities that in their opinion should be developed in today's managers. These are:
1. Faculty of managing oneself: learning to treat oneself as a unique and valuable resource to sustain your contribution year after year.
2. Strong personal values: consistency of values (in decision-making) with the current concept of successful management, generally emphasize effectiveness, recognizing the potential of people and fostering openness to innovation.
3. Clear personal objectives: identify work objectives and personal goals to correctly arrive at alternatives and courses of action.
4. Continuous personal growth: confronting weaknesses and being in continuous improvement.
This quality coincides with the fourth key area of competence of Nanus and Bennis (1995): deployment of the self through positive self-concept and the Wallenda factor.
This in essence refers to the fact that the leader must act, on the one hand, taking into account their strengths and weaknesses and work according to the latter, and on the other, must carry this out, taking risks and always focusing on success.
5. Problem-solving skills: You must be able to solve problems quickly and effectively, in which the leader's intellectual capacity plays a fundamental role, in our opinion.
6. Creativity and Innovation: be prepared to face setbacks and failure constructively, to effectively manage change.
7. High ability to influence: ability to persuade others without resorting to authority.
8. Supervisory capacity (or push in my opinion): it is the capacity to achieve results through the effort of subordinates, effectively managing human and material resources.
9. Ability to instruct or perfect others: skills to help others, to quickly and efficiently learn new techniques and practices.
10. Capacity for team building: ability to organize people into competent teams.
11. Ability to take charge of your own life.
On the other disciplines that according to Peter Senge (1998) leaders must develop, it will be discussed below, since one of them, the shared vision, was referred to in previous paragraphs. These are:
Systemic thinking. This is the so-called 5th discipline and according to the author, it is the one that integrates the other disciplines, merging them into a coherent body of theory and practice, although at the same time it requires the others to realize their potential. Thus, the shared vision encourages long-term commitment, mental models emphasize the openness necessary to expose the limitations of our way of acting and seeing the world, team learning develops group skills in people in order to Transcending individual perspectives and personal mastery encourages personal motivation to continually learn how our perceptions affect the world.
Systemic thinking continually reminds us that the whole can exceed the sum of the parts, and allows us to understand the most subtle aspect of intelligent organization: the new perception of oneself and of the world.
Personal domain. This is the discipline that allows us to continually clarify and delve into our personal vision, concentrate efforts, develop patience and see reality objectively, which is why it constitutes a cornerstone of intelligent organizations: their spiritual foundation. It begins by clarifying the things that really interest us, to put our lives at the service of our aspirations.
According to the author, a person with a high personal mastery, is able to consistently achieve the results that matter to him, taking life as an artist would take a work of art.
Mental models. They are deeply rooted assumptions, generalizations and images that influence our way of seeing the world and acting. For the author, working with this discipline begins by "turning the mirror inward", learning to evoke our own images of the world, which we will later bring to the surface where they will be the object of our analysis.
This discipline also includes the ability to engage in open conversations where questioning is done through persuasion and where people expose their ideas to the criteria of others.
Team learning. According to Senge, this discipline is vital, since it states that currently the fundamental unit of learning in organizations is not the individual, but teams (with which I fully agree) and if they do not learn, he adds, organizations do not May exist.
In essence, team learning is the process of aligning and developing their ability to achieve the results that their members really want.
According to the author, today “all important decisions are made in teams, either directly or through their need to translate individual decisions into action… With teamwork, new concepts are put into practice, new skills can communicate to other subjects and other teams. "
This discipline is indeed collective, but it supposes the presence in each member of a set of skills and knowledge and even of "own behaviors" in team situations. In my opinion, this is very important since, although this does not per se determine the success of group learning and the achievement of collective goals, it is an initial condition for this to be possible. It also involves mastering the practices of dialogue and discussion: the two ways in which teams converse, to creatively confront the forces that oppose them. The first allows free and creative exploration of complex and subtle issues, where others are listened to without resistance and the second enables the presentation and defense of different perspectives,trying to select the best one to support the decisions to be made. These practices are usually potentially complementary.
Another author who also highlights the importance of teamwork is Mario Borghino when he affirms that collaboration is a principle that we understand by nature, and that in this sense, leaders will always be clear about the principle that others are necessary to achieve great results in life (Borghino, 1998).
This implies that the leader must give himself the task of finding people who coincide with his purposes and believe in his vision to then take action, which is only achieved with the contribution, with the support of ideas, and the intelligence that others possess in a complementary way.
According to this author's point of view, it is in this complementarity that the leader believes and in which the diversity of the thinking of a team that seeks the same end arises, this end being precisely the justification for acting together. Therefore, he concludes, if our objective is to grow and progress, logic should dictate that acting in groups is better than acting individually (Borghino, 1998).
He affirms that when we work in teams we act in a more peaceful, integrated and civilized way and points out that the difficulties we face in working in teams lie in the way we have been educated, in which we have been incorporating patterns of behavior that do not contribute to achievement of the collective, but to individual achievement.
According to these ideas, he refers to nine factors or pillars of our education, which in his opinion have destroyed the way of conceiving leadership and teamwork.
These factors are:
1. The stimulation of individual competition before cooperation.
2. Think more about individual goals than common goals.
3. Live more in the exercise of power than in the ability to influence.
4. Educated more in "high-tech" than in "human-side".
5. Formed more in arrogance than in humility.
6. Focused more on self-centered attitudes than pluralism.
7. Educated in the here and now rather than in the long term and the direction of our lives.
8. Educated more in external values than in universal principles.
9. Educated more in the autocratic model than in the synergistic model.
Regarding the topic that has been treated in this article, we find that in Cuba, at the end of the 90's (specifically in 1997), the MSc Liliam Calderón develops an investigation on the need for competitive leadership in companies nationals.
The purpose of this research was to assess the leadership characteristics required by the managers of Cuban organizations to carry out the competitive strategies that the Cuban economy was considering at that time.
In this study, it was considered that, in general, the competitiveness of a company, sector or nation, refers to its ability to stay in the market, for which an analysis of the different factors involved in its scope, as well as the routes used to achieve it.
All this gives an active character to the competitiveness in which the strategies proposed by the organizations and the characteristics of the men –especially the managers- who are the ones who choose or not the path of competitiveness, the type of strategy, make sense. to follow and fail or not its implementation.
Based on some conceptions about competitiveness, the author states that what marks sustainable competitive advantage is innovative capacity, which is exclusive to human beings, and which needs to be used appropriately and conveniently to achieve the objectives that lead to the competitiveness.
In this sense, it states that this human resource, especially the leader –as the person who influences a work group to achieve certain objectives in the organizational context- plays a leading role in the choice and implementation of strategies to achieve competitiveness from an analysis of the sector and the organization, as well as its personal characteristics to foster innovation and people's commitment. Taking this into account, he concludes that the key point of the leader's functions would then be to achieve the direction of human resources towards the achievement of competitiveness, based on the survival of the organization in a world of competition.
Finally, in what I agree with the author, she considers that although the characteristics required for leadership effectiveness are vital for managers, they are not valid per se and cannot be taken as absolute. These characteristics will always be projected in a certain organizational context, with their particular problems and different levels of development, so predicting their impact on competitiveness requires linking them to the performance potential of human resources and other factors such as economic strategies..
According to the results obtained in this research, the leadership characteristics (expressed in terms of psychological attributes) required by managers turned out to be the following:
- Take risks: be an entrepreneur, accept challenges, resist uncertainty.
- Participation: be democratic, identify the group with the objectives of the organization in solving problems, accept ideas and proposals and avoid "formalisms".
- Autonomy: being independent, thinking for themselves, deciding and acting without regulation from superiors, not delegating "upwards", assuming individual responsibilities.
- Future projection: be visionary, seize opportunities, be strategic, anticipate the future.
- Cognitive complexity: having a facility for learning, establishing associations, dealing with difficult and complex information, handling contradictions, increasing alternatives for decision making.
- Flexibility: being versatile, adapting to diverse situations, having open thoughts to contingencies and other ways of thinking.
- Creativity: being proactive, having low resistance to change, developing initiatives, innovating, promoting the creativity of others, facilitating initiatives.
- Communication: influencing, convincing, being sociable, knowing how to negotiate. Having expository clarity, knowing how to dialogue openly, knowing how to listen, solving conflicts.
- Motivation: desires for personal development, stimulating agreement to results, recognition for work, taking into account the needs of others, stimulating training.
Another line of research in Cuba, where it also ventures into the subject, is the one carried out by the Transportation Research Group, which among other activities, is dedicated to detecting leadership potential in young people.
The product of these investigations is the obtaining of a profile of managerial aptitudes, where among others they are: Leadership capacity or drive: referred to the manager's capacity to obtain results; the ability to persuade, defined as the ability to persuade, motivate and commit people to fulfill the entity's objectives; intellectual capacity, referred to the general intellectual level; and motivation and interest towards the performance of managerial functions, defined as the motivational drive towards activities that involve directing others.
So far, the reader can appreciate how the different authors define, call them the skills, characteristics, attributes, habits, disciplines, faculties, or traits that distinguish leaders, and that in fact, influence the effectiveness of their performance. All this opens up a range of possibilities that allows us to identify and assume a given term and define it based on our research interests.
And if identification is involved, I can say that I do it with the term of competences, not because its use is very widespread nowadays, but because it really offers a more comprehensive and holistic perspective on the "skills" with which account a person.
