I think that although there are other great authors, there are many of us who miss Peter Drucker in the management literature. He called bread bread, wine wine, and did not incur circumlocutions. For example, he defined leadership very briefly, and reading it, it seemed that there was not much more to say. However, today we go around many concepts such as talent, creativity, coaching, quality, professionalism, intelligence, competitiveness, etc., and we hardly distinguish between human resources and human capital, or between innovation and technological renewal.
I remember that, in the early 90's, the prestigious Hungarian-American psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi led a study on creativity. He intended to interview numerous personalities selected for their creative profile, and Peter Drucker, now in his eighties, declined to be interviewed: "They tell me I'm creative… I don't know what that means… I just keep working hard… I hope you don't judge me presumptuous or rude If I tell him that one of the secrets of productivity (in which, contrary to what happens to me with creativity, I do believe) is to have a very large bin to archive all the invitations like yours. ”
Something newer. We have known weeks ago the decision of the Jury in a Literary Prize convened by the online newspaper for human resources professionals, RRHHDigital: a text by Enrique Rodríguez Balsa, in which a critical review by some buzzwords is made. Specifically, it focuses on "coaching" and "talent". Enrique speaks with irony and humor about the “scam” of coaching and the “tale” of talent, and his criticism has been applauded by this means, with an acknowledgment that has been followed by many congratulations from readers. Apparently, when coaching is associated with a scam, or talent with a story, applause arises.
I think that, if the bases had allowed a greater extension of the text, some other concept would have been equally addressed by the author, because, indeed, from so many turns given to the concepts in the management literature, I fear that we can speak of dizzy partridges. In fact, one of the readers' comments adds the "satiety" of leadership, to which I certainly subscribe. But I'm not so attached to coaching being a scam, or talent being a tale.
My opinion is that not all the coaching that is practiced is scam, nor does everything that is said about talent seem to me to count; But it is worth celebrating the irony of the winner of this Digital HR Award, with these reservations. And above all, it is worth reflecting on it. For my part, memories come to me related to dizziness, if not adulteration, of concepts in the business world.
I remember that the first great postulate that I knew when I started working, back in the early 70s, was quality; But then quality meant, at least in my company, "zero defects". Today perhaps it must mean something else, because a couple of years ago we bought an oven at home and it came with a mechanical defect. He brought his "Certified Product" label (by prestigious institution), but they had to take it, and they brought another. After a few months we had another mechanical problem… I would like to continue relating quality to customer satisfaction, whether it is measured or not, following an established procedure.
Then, in the 80s-90s, Total Quality would come, which I did not understand very well. I never knew if "Total Quality Management" was total quality management, or total quality management (as I believed). Then there was talk of excellence, and EFQM. I must be crossing memories, but there was back then the quality circles, the development groups, the improvement teams, the task forces…
But I think that the most important thing was that of Management by Objectives, in the 80s and 90s. It represented a certain assumption of prominence by managers and workers, and it seemed to me a theoretically correct idea, which did not take long to adulterate itself in the application. Criticism of the DpO arose, but it seemed to me that the perfectible was the formulation of objectives. In any case, and I do not know whether to inherit the business of seminars, books, etc., some other formulas came up later: Management by Values, Management by Missions, Management by Habits, Management by Trust… I am not saying that there is no basis for these Other doctrines, but I still think that we are going, or should go, every day to work to achieve goals or achieve objectives.
Apparently, after the success of other formulas, the PDO had to be reviled: "Management by objectives reduces the worker to a living tool, with differential bonus schemes to induce him to use every ounce of energy." This was supported by Sandra Díaz, then a prominent consultant for the club called Top Ten, to add later: "We cannot but reject a form of government that does not see the human being as integral." However, I was able to find out that it was a phrase translated from English (… the reduction of the workman to a living tool, with differential bonus schemes to induce him to expend his last ounce of energy…), written at the beginning of the 20th century by Edward Cadbury, and that he could not refer to the DpO at all, a system that would appear several decades later: he referred, I think, to Taylorism.
Regarding the new formulas, there was something (written by MA Alcalá) that struck me: “The challenges of the DpH (Direction for Habits) are two: define what are the habits that are convenient for people, and show the paths to achieve them. In this strict sense, the work consists of the person conquering the truth of himself in his actions, and, in parallel, the full good for himself, with his conduct: living the truth about the good done in each act, and the realization of the good subordinated to the truth about his own being ”. I had to read it several times, and I still don't know if it is a delusion or a very successful abstraction.
I also remember, from the 90s, the "potential". There were people with potential and people without potential. I never liked that, at least said so. Those labeled "with potential" were allowed to do almost everything, and the results were somewhat unfortunate, in my opinion as an observer. On the other hand, I was demanding at that time that a distinction be made between management potential and technical potential; but only management potential seemed to be of interest.
And also around then I started hearing about leadership. It seems that the traits of the brightest senior managers were studied and thus the profile of leadership came to be defined. In practice, the future leaders were the youth with the greatest “potential”. I used to say, with some irony, that "a leader is a man who says things"; he said it because everyone repeated "as the president has said…". The fact is, after the avalanche of DpO courses, leadership courses came for young people with potential. I do not remember that there were courses on potential, because that was or was not. I said that anyone who didn't have it could buy it at the pharmacy, but they didn't take me seriously.
In the mid-90s, I started reading about coaching and mentoring, but I'm afraid we couldn't agree on the difference or the meaning of each concept. Also, connected to the Reuters Business Briefing Service, I started reading about knowledge management, but I also believe that the translation lost meaning of the signifier, at least in my environment of those years. I insisted that knowledge management was something different from continuous training courses.
I don't tire them anymore. It simply meant that if we rid certain concepts of perhaps interested adulterations or wacky delusions, we may find useful meaning. In truth, there are people who are born with talent for a certain activity, such as there is a need to formulate and achieve objectives or results in the business world, or how valuable achievements can be achieved from the professional practice of coaching… We can all be more effective and happy in work, and genuine coaching, practiced by expert professionals, with or without accreditation, could help us to this end. Too bad that their appropriation by other people has contributed to discredit or devalue this Confucian and Socratic practice. JE Nordkom Professional Companies. Thanks for your attention.
