The system of directing for objectives, which Peter Drucker pointed out more than fifty years ago and also developed by other authors, has been encountering difficulties in its application and seems to have been adulterated in companies with some frequency; Perhaps for this and for other reasons, including perhaps the levels of professionalism and commitment that it demands, the Management by Objectives has been observed with some prevention in the neosecular panorama.
But it was only recently (2006) when a book, published by the consultants Élogos and Mind Value, has been very explicit rejecting this management system.
Written by Sandra Díaz Leonardo and Marián García Arigüel, the book “Management by Habits: a transformation model” already rejects on page 20 the management by Objectives (DpO), then presents the Management by Values (DpV) as a notable advance, and points to Habit Management (DpH) as the most suitable system in the progress of management.
Specifically and in their first reference to the DpO, the authors bring words apparently collected by another author (Miguel Ángel Alcalá): “Management by objectives reduces the worker to a living tool, with differential bonus schemes to induce him to employ up to last drop of energy ”.
Adhering to this phrase, Díaz and García immediately add: "We cannot but reject a form of government that does not see the human being as integral." This is certainly the first thing that is said about the PDO in this book by Élogos and Mind Value, and it sounds surprising: in more than two decades of the presence of this professional management system in Spain, we had not known such a critical point of view.
En realidad, la frase en que las autoras basan su contundente rechazo a la DpO está textualmente traducida del autor Edward Cadbury, que al parecer (según referencias encontradas en Internet) la escribió en inglés (…the reduction of the workman to a living tool, with differential bonus schemes to induce him to expend his last ounce of energy…) en torno a 1914, pero no refiriéndose a la Dirección por Objetivos (de la que faltaban varias décadas para que empezara a hablarse), sino a algunos efectos del taylorismo. De modo que las autoras estarían fundiendo la Dirección por Objetivos de avanzado el siglo XX, con posibles desviaciones del management científico que Frederick Winslow Taylor difundiera a principios del siglo pasado. Hay que recordar aquí que, cuando Drucker se refería, con respeto, al taylorismo, apuntaba empero errores que consideraba fundamentales, y no parece por consiguiente acertada la fusión (no cabe pensar en confusión) de unos y otros postulados.
It is true that, without using arguments protected by errors, we could question the management system by objectives or, more specifically, its specific applications in different organizations; But there are many experts and managers who consider essential the formulation of goals to be achieved and objectives to be achieved.
Aligning our efforts with a purpose seems necessary, because otherwise we would not know if each step brings us closer or further away from the expected results; But it is true that the formulation of objectives has been very complex on more than one occasion. We can reject the PDO as the authors of this book do, or choose to exercise extreme care when formulating objectives, qualitative or quantitative, so that they stimulate the professionalism of managers and workers, and contribute to the desirable empowerment (probably inexcusable in the knowledge economy).).
On the other hand, it must be added that the pursuit of suitably formulated objectives does not close the way to other management postulates, but rather opens them up.
The model of Management by Habits of Professor Fernández Aguado (Mind Value) does not seem to refer to what to achieve (objectives) but to habits related to how. When talking about specific habits, we are told about prudence, fairness, punctuality, industry, joy, bravery, good humor, responsibility, strength, balance, knowing how to be, good taste, simplicity…
These attributes can be seen as personal strengths, as values, and even as habits, and they are certainly positive; But is it really possible to reject the pursuit of objectives, to preach good habits?
The alternative proposed to us: the DpH
The book “Management by Habits: a transformation model”, published by Élogos with the endorsement of Mind Value, proposes the so-called Management by Habits (DpH) as a superior system, which accommodates the DpO “but not as the element central, but as an operation tool that allows to clarify the tasks in the short term… ”. The truth is that one thought that the DpO clarified objectives, that is, results to be achieved, and not so much the tasks to be carried out (as the book says), but, due to the prestige of the Mind Value factory, I decided to find out what it consisted of the DpH.
I had read, in a Deloitte & Touche study prepared by Miguel Ángel Alcalá (general director of the International Association for Management Studies): “The challenges of the DpH are two: to define what are the habits that suit 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 ”. At that time I had already proposed to decipher the DpH, because this paragraph of Alcalá seemed challenging to me: being unthinkable that he was kidding the reader, there must have been something special about the DpH.
In the book of Élogos to which I have referred, we are told that DpH “consists of putting values into action”, but I thought that this had more to do with direction by values (DpV) and I continued reading chapter 3, in which the model of Javier Fernández Aguado is described:
- “DpH is proposed as a higher stage in the development of leadership or leadership styles.” “DpH gathers the most relevant aspects of DpV, but with increased anthropological depth.” “DpH is the achievement of the translation of the values of the company in daily actions. "" The DpH demands much more from the manager, since to a large extent the management tool will be their own behaviors. "" The DpH implies a deep commitment on the part of the manager and the collaborators, because it is not only assuming an external aspirational reference… "" The DpH can be defined as the leadership that is characterized by the conquest of positive behaviors… "
From this and other ideas deployed, I deduced - because I did not know how to extract a greater doctrinal body here - that the DpH should consist of managers, in their role as leaders, practicing good habits and serving as an example to their collaborators.
Among the habits to which the system refers, the book highlights prudence, justice, strength and temperance, and includes an accurate description of these cardinal virtues; it can therefore be inferred that it is basically that managers are virtuous, and that workers follow their example.
Perhaps the reader will think, like me, that in order to be prudent, fair, strong-minded and temperate, perhaps the workers no longer need, in the company, the example of anyone, nor to be punctual, upright, cheerful or bold, or to have a good mood; but there is no questioning the exemplary behavior of managers, whether or not they serve as an example: therefore, welcome is the cultivation of good habits and cardinal virtues. Probably, whatever our religion or culture, these virtues have been preached to all of us as children, and in fact they are part of the ubiquitous strengths that positive psychology, led by Martin Seligman, gathers. Prudence, justice, strength, and temperance are, as we know, present in the continuing evangelization of adult Christians: often in the Sunday sermon.
As a reader, it was hard for me to see in the book how above what; But above all, it was hard for me to see the how apparently reduced to the practice of virtuous habits: perhaps you will see something else when reading it.
I believe that, in the company, the achievement of results is achieved through the performance of tasks, the performance of functions, the application of knowledge, continuous improvement, innovation, orientation to the market and customers…, all this materialized with care and professionalism; It is not bad, but good, to be prudent, fair, brave or cheerful, but without a doubt we go to the company, every day, to work. As followers of the leaders, or as subordinates of the bosses, or as collaborators of the incumbents, or as professionals in our technical area, but we go to work to carry out tasks after normally known goals. It seems like an unnecessary truism, but - excuse me - I needed to say it.
New Profiles
I have tried, however, and without success, to dialogue with Élogos and Mind Value about the need to review the profiles of workers and managers, in this emerging economy of knowledge and innovation, because perhaps the leader-followers models are losing validity for the benefit of more professional relationships. The new knowledge worker Peter Drucker described to us is responsible and competent, and he plays his role with a healthy dose of autonomy; In their technical-scientific area, their knowledge typically exceeds that of their managers, they make decisions (empowerment), and they improve, through permanent learning and development, their knowledge, skills, faculties, attitudes and actions. They seem to be as loyal -or perhaps more- to their profession as to their company, and that is why they are lovers of things well done:this seems to be the necessary worker in the emerging economy.
Curiously, of the managers and executives of the weekend panorama, Drucker did not have a good image: "I am horrified by the greed of today's executives," said the author in one of his last books. Indeed, we have known in recent years not exemplary behaviors in some great executives, outside and inside our country: power undoubtedly tends to corrupt, although we should not generalize.
Parallel to the evolution of the profile of the worker in the emerging economy, we can refer to that of the profile of middle managers. Perhaps they should be fewer ministers of the Interior and more foreign ministers, and, although their conduct must always be exemplary, perhaps their most significant habits and virtues do not coincide with the priorities that, in this matter, correspond to the workers of the to know.
It enriches all of the well understood prudence, justice, strength and temperance that the book preaches, but, for example, elements such as responsibility, commitment or knowing how to be, may be more relevant for the manager, and not result in the same measure required of workers… To explain it, the manager may be forced to extend his or her working hours on a regular basis, or to adapt his or her schedule, and that we should not expect the same from workers whose wages are significantly lower (sometimes half or the third part); It is possible that the commitment leads the manager to make sacrifices that the worker cannot demand; it is possible that the prudence of the manager is sometimes based on political correctness, and that the worker has to be, sometimes, less politically correct…
The competency movement started by McClelland in the 70s moved us to identify the knowledge, skills, abilities, strengths, values, attitudes and habits (I was surprised, by the way, that it was spoken in the book of habits, without dwelling further on the Stephen Covey to postulate for personal effectiveness) required by each job; so we must all display a professional profile that has the requirements of the position as a reference, and perhaps we should not focus so much on our bosses as competency models. On the other hand, following the example of the boss could also sometimes lead us to high levels of ego worship, narcissism, greed, desire for power, presumption of infallibility, etc.
I am here advocating for the devil to encourage the critical thinking of the reader, who must receive with care and reflection every point of view to which he agrees, including that of this writer.
As I finish, I am not convinced by the thought, also found in the book, that "a good leader is one who knows how to get the best out of his collaborators", because then, if a worker gave his best, We would tend to almost automatically credit the boss. I think that this, in the 21st century, must catalyze the good performance of professionals in their area, without exceeding the "conquest" of their wills, or taking away their role; but, naturally, each organization divides the roles between managers and workers according to their circumstances and interests.
My conclusion
It seems to me that, as we distinguish between ends and means, it is possible to do it between objectives to be pursued and tasks to be carried out to achieve them. When carrying out these tasks, it is of course advisable that we be virtuous, but without forgetting the results that we must achieve as professionals. In other words, I would grant greater validity to the pursuit of goals, results, objectives, ideally formulated in companies.
If the means are to be put to the service of the ends, the professional and virtuous conducts are to be put at the service of the formulated objectives; for that reason it is difficult for me to understand that it is the DpH, the one that “makes room” for the DpO. I would understand it better the other way around, but the fact is that the PDO never seems to have tried to conquer foreign spaces: as I have known it, it has been referring to the results to be achieved, leaving the how (and the orchestration of lifelong learning) to the operation of each company, and leaving the values and styles to the organizational culture.
We must admit that, obsessed with the achievement of objectives, perhaps some people have sometimes distorted their behavior in the years that have passed, and it certainly seems opportune and necessary to talk about values, habits and good behavior in companies.
In reality, one would prefer to speak of "professionalism" to label the behaviors and relationships that must characterize us, but I have displayed all these reflections in defense of the need to pursue and achieve results, previously formulated as ambitious, but realistic and professionally stimulating objectives. I thank the reader who has followed me here, in my "rejection of the rejection" of management for objectives, either agrees or disagrees with what is read here or there.
