The prosperity of companies is everyone's cardinal goal, and in this regard we find frequent formulas for success in the management literature. Without a doubt, there are ways to do things better, best practices, recipes that contribute to achieving results, to securing the future…; although perhaps each organization, being unique, needs, where appropriate, unique solutions to its problems. On the other hand, the prevention of these should be practiced more, both individually and organizationally.
I fear that there is still some organization that reminds us of the clumsiness Scott Adams spoke about, as well as many others with relatively well identified pathologies at the metaphorical level; but it does not seem to me - or it seemed - that universal solutions fit, except those that demand a greater dose of common sense. By the way, is common sense really that bad?
Ten years ago, I learned of a company in which, to increase sales, commercials were rewarded for the number of offers presented; indeed, this created a significant additional workload for the technicians, who were in charge of formulating the solutions and estimating the resources in each case. Sales did not grow, but the offers, in my opinion, were less attractive because they were prepared with little confidence. I think a drop in sales could have been generated due to a lack of both systemic thinking and common sense.
I fear, by the way, that systemic thinking remains a pending issue and that certain tasks or functions are often encouraged, to the detriment of others that are also necessary in companies; if not for the short term, for the medium or long. For example, perhaps workers tend to turn to billable tasks when it earns them a salary, and to prefer or procrastinate others that are equally necessary for the prosperity of the company.
In those late 90s when I read "The Dilbert Principle", I began to be interested in the health and intelligence of organizations, and still recently published a modest and short text about it. As a result of this interest, I was looking weeks ago for information on the Internet about “organizational pathologies”. In this search, as in others that I do, I found what I call serendipitous discoveries, and I think it appropriate to bring you what follows.
"What business management model do you currently propose as the most appropriate to achieve success?" Asked Tribuna de Salamanca (April, 2008) to the "professor and businessman" Javier Fernández Aguado, whom I often end up reaching when I search. on the Internet, and whose oratory is magnificent. He replied: "… today many are recognizing the validity of the Habit Management Model (DpH), which I have been implementing in organizations around the world for a decade."
It caught my attention because, in a book by the consulting firm Élogos, I had read some time ago: “The challenges of the DpH 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 ”. When I first saw this, it seemed to me more like a delusion than an abstraction, and I openly confess it; But if, as we are told, it works throughout the world, it will be necessary to study the DpH more thoroughly.
I have to add that some time ago I was suspicious of this model because the book of Élogos defended it after rejecting the Direction by Objectives (DpO) with arguments from third parties; arguments that actually pointed to Taylorism and not to the much later DpO, a detail that perhaps escaped the author, Sandra Díaz. But… what will the DpH have, which is triumphing throughout the world (although it is not reported on the Internet, gee)
While we find out the scope of this serendipitous new discovery of mine, I would contribute to the prosperity debate some ingredients of the recipe that until now I had considered as good: systemic thinking, knowledge and innovation management, permanent learning and development, perception of realities, pursuit of suitable objectives, self-leadership of all (managers and workers) as far as possible, emphasis on informational and conversational skills, quality of life (well understood) in the company… Perhaps, the DpH of the "professor and businessman" Fernández Aguado encompass these things, or other more effective.
At the moment, Sandra Díaz recently pointed out in the magazine Observatorio RRHH that the main dimensions of the leader are perspective, equity, strength and balance (apparently, as a business version of prudence, justice, strength and temperance); and added that "A habit-based government strategy aims to make people want to do what they should do naturally, without involving any added effort…". It seems to think that people are not going to want to do what they should do, without a leader who succeeds: this reminds me of McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y…
Well, I invite you to practice lifelong learning more, or lifelong e-learning, looking for information, because this gadget with a screen, which gives us so many scares, also has a lot to show us for the benefit of permanent learning and development. Thanks for your attention.
