About cultural changes in companies we began to speak with more intensity in our country, in the 80s and 90s; Changes that, as some experts said, had their origin in the beliefs gathered by the well-known theory "Y" (which has just turned 50) of Douglas McGregor, that of responsible and committed workers, protagonists of his work. In reality, theories "X" and "Y" were hardly mentioned at the time; no, the profile of the workers did not seem to focus so much as that of the managers, whom he wanted to see, in those 90s and even today, as leaders of his subordinates.
It must be said that surely we can all be more effective and feel more satisfied at work, and that to a large extent this also depends on hierarchical relationships, such as the habits, norms, beliefs and values in force in companies, that is, on what we call functional or organizational culture; But the cultural changes that have taken place in the last 15 or 20 years have not always been effective (perhaps not even authentic). Supposing it was actually intended, people's mental models are not easily changed, and it was of little use hanging posters in the hallways to recall the proclaimed corporate values, or the declared management style, if nothing more was done. if it were effective.
But to what ton, or are they, I come, if the reader agrees or consents, to remind them of those corporate processes of supposed cultural change ? I propose it to you because, if there was a pending labor reform in our country (better or worse resolved by the current executive), perhaps a more accredited, more focused cultural reform, could contribute more to the desired levels of productivity and competitiveness in companies; a cultural reform that sees the skilled worker, who learns continuously, as a professional bearer of human capital, and not so much as a resource, a follower, an employee, a subordinate, a collaborator or a coachee; a cultural reform more in line with the knowledge economy, that would not repeat the mistakes made or introduce new ones.
It may be read with skepticism or indifference, but perhaps we should review, yes, the beliefs and values in force in companies, to help unblock, unlock, unblock productivity, which seems to be a cardinal objective. Each organization is unique and everything is more complex, but perhaps, where it has not already been decidedly taken, it would be necessary, yes, to make a quantum leap, groundbreaking, in the beliefs and current values, that is, in the deepest and intangible of organizational cultures.
We know this well: if, installed in the deep-rooted beliefs of theory X - that of workers who tend to avoid work and need continuous control - we reduce the qualified worker, the permanent learner, to mere obedience to the boss (or following the leader), and instead of asking for results and prominence, we force you to prepare answers and explanations for when asked, we may be wasting much of the potential available.
Yes, the knowledge worker, seen as a mere human resource or as a follower of his boss-leader, can limit himself to following instructions and only that, perhaps inhibiting much of his potential. We know this, yes, but obedience is still valued - values not proclaimed, but valid - over intelligence, complicity over professionalism, appearance over experience. In the knowledge economy, and as the most intelligent and innovative companies propose, obedience should not mean giving up intelligence and creativity, nor should commitment be identified with complicity, when it implies disloyalty to the profession practiced, abandonment of scruples, or renunciation of universal ethical principles.
What to say about leadership, the great buzzword of recent years? That perhaps the most effective does not consist in “following” the supposed leaders, but, as much as possible, in “pursuing” and “achieving” professionally attractive goals, which we would reach more out of pure magnetism than mere follow-up. It would not be so much about aligning the effort with the will of the boss-leader, as doing it to achieve well defined and shared objectives. Without defining the goals, it is not possible to talk about leadership, because nobody should lead without knowing where they are going, or without telling those who have to contribute to getting there. So maybe it wasn't so much about orchestrating myriad leadership seminars for managers as it was about sharing real, entrepreneurial and professionally attractive goals and preparing workers to achieve them.
I fear that, as Peter Drucker said, knowledge workers do not feel followers of their bosses, but professionals in their technical areas; that, if someone tries to manipulate them, they detect it and take distance; that there are also many executives who, although they attend leadership seminars, know well that the condition of leader is given by the followers and that there is no seminary from which they come out.
We can see the manager as an achiever of collective results, or as a facilitator for the collectives to achieve their results; but the latter seems to fit better into the knowledge economy. I have heard (and read) prestigious experts say that "the boss-leader is the one who makes his collaborators want to do what they have to do" (which reminds me of theory X, which supposes that workers do not want to), but, perhaps and rather, it should be said that "the boss-leader is one who proposes attractive and challenging goals for professionals in his area of influence, and facilitates their achievement" (which seems to me closer to theory Y).
Each organization is certainly unique, the reader will have his own opinion, and McGregor was, as is known, formulating a third theory, more realistic then apparently, when he sadly passed away. So is; But sometimes we block a worker's capabilities, when we limit him to following a boss instead of asking him to activate his potential to generate a result. The knowledge economy seems to demand skilled workers, who surpass managers in technical knowledge and deploy all their human capital in the service of professional and business results. If we did not have workers like this (which we do have), this profile would certainly have to be cultivated and not that of a follower.
Those cultural changes
At the end of the 20th century, there were, yes, many large companies that had deployed specific programs for cultural change, often in parallel with the implementation of the work by objectives advocated by Peter Drucker (and who will soon be 60 years old, maintaining, I believe I, its validity despite frequent mistakes in adaptation and application). In reality, this cultural movement at the end of the century was also sometimes accompanied by noticeable reductions in workforce, so that we could perceive severe restructuring - for the sake of Hammer's postulated reengineering and technical advances - concurrent with the supposed cultural change.
I was able to experience closely the case of a large company, in which the workforce was reduced to approximately a tenth in the last three decades of the 20th century, while transitioning from one technology to another, and the sector was opening up to new agents. In the cultural sphere, first (late 80s) the Management by Objectives (PDO) was formally introduced (perhaps more in the forms than in the funds), and then a change program was orchestrated inspired by the European model of excellence. Foundation for Quality Management.
I bring this memory to add that, among the proclaimed corporate values, at a certain moment they included commitment and pride of belonging; however, a short time later, the executive in charge of the cultural change program, to everyone's surprise, ceased to belong to the organization to run a competing company. Then "pride" was replaced by that of "spirit" of belonging.
Without underestimating the emotional adherence of individuals to their organizations, perhaps, when focusing on what is to be valued in people, we should point out more frequently to lifelong learning, creativity, professionalism, responsibility, diligence, proactivity, integrity… Well understood, that is, oriented towards the best business results, in economic figures and in the satisfaction of all, these traits of people, among others, are inexcusable in the economy of knowledge and innovation; But perhaps today, as in the past, many managers may continue to value, above all, the obedience of their subordinates above their intelligence.
Yes, in the last decade of the 20th century great changes, technical and non-technical, were experienced in companies of a certain size, to prepare for the turn of the century and the millennium; it was the decline of the industrial age and the emergence of the era of knowledge and innovation. From a technical point of view, and specifically with regard to the ubiquitous information and communication technologies, I believe that progress, which is undoubtedly welcome, has nevertheless been imposing itself with a certain arrogance on occasions, so that more importance has been given to technology than the information it supported; But let's focus on culture: changes typically related to new postulates of people management.
In different areas, solid postulates began to sound strongly in the 90s, such as competency management, knowledge management, empowerment, creativity, positive psychology, emotional intelligence, systemic thinking, informational skills, critical thinking, lifelong learning, personal mastery, or teamwork; In short, it was necessary to begin to value and nurture "human capital", a concept that some people still strive to make synonymous with "human resources" and that can best be related to "human resources" (knowledge, feelings, wills, intelligence, creativity…).
Postulates like these pointed to the excellence of companies; but I fear that to some extent they were adulterated in practice, as happened with the DpO. Teamwork was basically about getting together more, especially for continuous improvement, and perhaps more emphasis should have been placed on sharing goals and fostering synergies. On the other hand, they wanted to associate emotional intelligence with leadershipfrom managers, perhaps to give content and meaning to the second; But the leadership seminars did not seem to raise the emotional intelligence of the attendees. Informational skills were discussed in universities but not in companies, where only computer skills were discussed. Critical thinking, fundamental for learning, for continuous improvement and for innovation, was not much talked about either, perhaps because it sounded critical…
Many companies incorporated competency management, that is, they incorporated competency management tools; but the identification of job competencies was not always correct. Knowledge management tools were also incorporated; but knowledge was not flowing as it should. Empowerment was preached by experts in organizational intelligence and associated with business excellence, but there was hardly any: managers kept reserving decision-making, and sometimes the activity was blocked while waiting. It had to be thought that subordinates would be wrong to decide: a belief to review.
Beliefs were to be revised, yes. If we enter the field of ethics, it seems to believe in more than one company that is worth everything that, with a little fortune, can go unpunished. Corruption is more pervasive than we usually think, and it would seem that there are two types of business management: the one that maintains scruples and the one that has abandoned them to survive. We would have to stop thinking that almost everything is worth it, although the entrepreneurs are certainly sovereign in their moral alignment; What happens is that professionalism is linked to integrity, and there is usually a significant emotional erosion in honest people who work in corrupt companies.
We must remember that the most socially responsible companies are not the ones that talk the most about corporate social responsibility; that the companies that talk the most about ethics are not the ones with the most complete conduct; that the managers who most declare the importance of people are not the ones who believe in it the most.
I would also like to bring up the topic of annual worker evaluation. I learned that some were evaluated more for their supposed compliance with business religion or doctrine (basically, following the chief executive as if he were some kind of high priest) than for their professional results, and here there is a great risk of no less disorder. I fear, from a historical perspective, that the behavior of some Popes has been more reprehensible than that of some supposed heretics, burned at the stake; But, without analogies, it must be said, for example, that commitment can be interpreted in very different ways, if it is not specified what we are to commit ourselves to.
Reflections
With the advantage provided by the passage of time, there may be room for reflections to draw some revealing conclusion. I would say that the formal orchestration of the work by objectives, when it was done, did not, however, significantly reduce the follow-up of instructions, frequent and even daily, from the boss; these tasks and errands had to be attended to, both because someone had to, and to ensure the best annual evaluation possible (the cardinal instrument of power of the boss).
On the other hand, the formulation of objectives was often deficient, perhaps because vertical deployment is not always easy, not to mention also conflicting or contradictory objectives between departments (in horizontal deployment), as well as a frequent lack of precision., and also of lack of holistic and systemic vision. Still today it must be explained that the objective is a kind of still photo, of the result achieved, and not a task to be carried out: the objective is not to walk the path, but to reach the goal under the established conditions. It would be necessary to recover the essence (professionalism, basically) of the tool that Peter Drucker proposed.
Regarding beliefs and values, perhaps we should start by better identifying the characteristics of the knowledge and innovation economy, including the importance of human capital. If you don't believe in human capital, there is nothing to do. I still remember Tom Peters in Madrid years ago, saying that managers spoke of the importance of people, but, with few exceptions, they lied in doing so: they did not really believe what they were saying. I am afraid that the situation has not changed much. From the above, it is possible to think that values are proclaimed in people, but in practice others are valued, and the "excess" of knowledge and intelligence can be an obstacle for a worker. We believe in human capital and catalyze its expression.
Warren Bennis claimed to know of no senior manager who, deep in his heart, was not convinced that his own head was better than all the others put together. This obviously constitutes an obstacle to the productivity of knowledge workers. If the knowledge and ideas of the boss, perhaps technically not so expert (in a time when the fields of knowledge are continually expanding) are to be imposed, the much-postulated lifelong & lifewide learning is of little use.
In short and to finish, we must make better use of human capital in companies, and that seems to require a change in the mentality of those who run them. In the era of knowledge and innovation, and if you bet on professionalism, all the intelligence and creativity of expert workers is required, as excellent companies know and demonstrate. It is certainly difficult to modify our deeply rooted mental models; But the effort is worth it for the benefit of the productivity and professional satisfaction of all. Thank you reader for your attention: remember that the vision I am formulating is only intended to encourage debate.
