Without a doubt, business management is complicated and, between good practices and coined labels, there are many concepts that fit into the “management by…” formula; for example: management by objectives, by command, by rules, by projects, by values, by competencies, by delegation, by wandering around, by consensus, by threats, by fear, by pressure, by carrots and sticks, by chewing out… But not all formulas are imported: we can also speak in Spanish of "leadership by habits" or "leadership by missions", these systems of Spanish origin.
So there are diverse management postulates known since, decades ago, people began to talk about management by objectives.
Some of the new postulates seem to come to solve the problems that, it is argued, had been generating the previous systems.
For example, years ago we could read an article that presented the management by values, referring to the legendary management by objectives, a system that was suggested to replace.
More recently, so-called mission management is also being offered to us as a new alternative. And we have also learned of another doctrine to improve management by values: the so-called management by habits, which some consultants -for example, the new “élogos”, the result of the merger of Fycsa and Doxa- seem to become their star product for 2006.
It should be remembered now that management by objectives, an idea spread by Peter Drucker fifty years ago, later became a good business both for management literature and for consultancies that offered courses for managers. The DpO system seminars of recent decades can number in the millions.
It does not appear that the system has always been properly implemented, but the fact is that it represents an advance or contribution towards individual and collective effectiveness, if applied in a smart organization environment.
In truth, the DpO, like other business management postulates, has not always been properly applied and has been subject to some adulteration; But I count on readers who consider this management practice incontestable, as long as there are results to be achieved and efforts to do so.
Perhaps one of the things we may have done wrong is the formulation of the objectives themselves, so that sometimes the achievement of their own put others' at risk, and perhaps also put the collective results of the organization at risk. Apparently, there were cases in which almost everyone had achieved their goals, but the global ones were not achieved.
Of course, a good functioning of the system cannot be imagined without an adequate, although laborious, formulation of objectives, as Drucker himself pointed out. And the same could be said of the so-called management by competencies: it requires a rigorous definition of the competencies of each position, which is not easy.
Sometimes I wonder about the personal competences of a political leader, and I do not know whether to think about future vision, allegation, wide-mindedness, commitment, integrity, self-criticism, flexibility, etc., or irony, verbal fluency, presence before the cameras, corruptibility, etc. All in all, the identification of competences seems easier to me than the formulation of objectives.
Personally, after many years in a large company (perhaps a pioneer in the implementation of the DpO in Spain) I think I have been generously treated by my bosses in many annual evaluations of results; but I also have some less pleasant memories for what it means to circumvent the doctrine of the system. Responsible for, among other things, transmitting a good image of my company by writing its bi-monthly customer newsletter, I remember my boss then saying something like:
“Yes, you have succeeded; but that objective does not count… ”. It seems inevitable that there will always be a judge to rule, but perhaps there has not always been a well-defined law to apply… And I also remember - readers recall their experiences - how, generalized the system for workers, all of them were included. global objectives of the company (or department), without the employees being able to make any decision or do anything other than carry out the tasks that were regularly assigned to them. I confess that, as an employee, I thought that if in the end the bosses did what they wanted in the outcome evaluations - and some even seemed pleased to show off their power - they did not need to take refuge in complex arguments. And I fear that in those years my skepticism was not exceptional,rather, many colleagues considered that what was most important to us was to please the boss.
I believe, yes, honestly, that the PDO - perhaps by force of putting patches to neutralize symptoms - became more and more adulterated with practice; but I doubt that the essence of the system has lost its validity. As a consultant, I never interpreted that, in the DpO, the fundamental thing was to achieve the objectives regardless of how; And I always understood that the how should be identified by functional organization, culture, professionalism, ethics, etc. Each reader will have their particular vision and opinion, depending on their experiences in this regard, and, on the other hand, there is no doubt that everything can be improved, including the DpO.
Habit Management
This recent model, promoted by Professor Javier Fernández Aguado, seems to generate an evolution of the principles that underpin management by objectives and management by values, to better tune into the realities of today; but I offer you textual paragraphs obtained on the Internet.
In the document (year 2002) of Deloitte and Touche, “From Management by Values to Management by Habits”: “The challenges of the DpH are two: define what are the habits that are convenient for people, and show the paths for 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 ”.
Well, I had to read the final part several times. I have certainly preferred to bring this previous paragraph verbatim, because I would not have been able to explain or synthesize it: in fact, it is difficult for me to understand it without being initiated. Perhaps it is a translation, since this doctrine seems to be inspired by Greek culture. But, to get closer to the idea, Fernández Aguado also tells us:
“The objectives of the company can be achieved by threat or by habits. It is dangerous to demand excessively: in the short term it is usually very useful because the employees work more for a time, but when the boss is gone, the workers disconnect. You have to know how to combine leadership by threat with leadership by habits, which consists of summoning the best wishes and interests of each person in the work they do ».
Some reader may think that a blurred image of the workers of the 21st century is being transmitted here, already surpassing Theory X that McGregor questioned; But let us observe, above all, that reference is made to the necessary achievement of objectives. In this regard, I have also found these words by Isidro Fainé:
“From a cold Direction by Instructions it was happened to an aseptic Direction by Objectives. Now, the Directorate for Values (introduced in our country by Professors Dolan and García), stemming from Indian thought; and the Habit Management (the result of the thought of Professor Fernández Aguado), based on Greek culture, manifest themselves as quality instruments to continue working for the benefit of each member of the organizations in which we work.
It is not a question of replacing the Management with Objectives, as of posing these in the form of Challenges, and completing the government indicating the appropriate ways for each worker to assume these new competences, which allow them to complete the Pindar proposal: It becomes what you must be".
It seems that the DpH does not come so much to replace the DpO as to improve the formulation of objectives, but the idea of competency management also seems to be incorporated. The reader will wonder what would think of these announced improvements the late Peter Drucker, so pragmatic and upright thinker, tireless worker and called bread to bread, and came to wine.
The Directorate for Missions
It appears to be another attempt - this from Professor Pablo Cardona of IESE - to overcome the problems of the DpO. We can read:
“Targeting is causing very negative side effects. It is one of the most important problems of large modern companies. Targeting is known to be overwhelming and ineffective. It has no way out. "
“The Directorate for Missions (DpM) is a new management system that incorporates the mission in the elaboration of the objectives at each level. This new system facilitates the identification of people with the mission of the company and reduces the dichotomy between said mission and daily management ”.
We see that it is also aimed at the formulation or elaboration of objectives, so we must be in a way to overcome the corresponding difficulties; It also seems to point to the necessary daily alignment with the company's mission. But I reproduce another explanatory paragraph, taken from an IESE document written by Pablo Cardona and Carlos Rey:
“Management by objectives has limitations that are not easily solved by adding non-financial objectives or by communicating more intensely a value system from outside the management system.
For this reason, it is necessary to propose a new management system that guides and enriches the objectives. The management by missions (DpM) solves the problems of the management by objectives and includes, in turn, other innovative proposals of recent years, such as management by competencies.
The DpM is based on distributing the mission of the company in missions at different levels, until reaching the particular mission of each person. Each mission participates in higher order missions, in such a way that all participate in the mission of the company.
The mission is then operationalized through the objectives. The objectives do not make sense in themselves, but are means to fulfill the mission.
This new management philosophy is much richer and has a greater ability to identify people with the company they work for and achieve higher performance at all levels of the organization. ”
We see that a deployment of the company's mission is necessary, just as we do of the objectives, and certainly everyone must be aware in the company of their own mission, and how it contributes to the community.
If perhaps the DpO were occasionally leading us to a blind achievement of objectives, it would undoubtedly be opportune to extend our horizons; but again there will be those who wonder what the pragmatic teacher would say about the DpM, fifty years after formulating his ideas about the DpO system.
I, looking for opinions, found a critical column in the direction “expansionyempleo.com”: “As my colleague, Professor Pablo Cardona, warned me, to lead missions, you must change most of the prevailing missions and put the things on your site.
This supposes a revolution that seeks to maximize nothing, myopic reason that it is not undertaken even if it is preached from a human resources department that boasts of being up to date.
Aristotle teaches us that there is not a technique of human excellence, but a wealth of habits that are learned when they are exercised. Sound managers know this and would make wonderful use of mission leadership - the best antidote to widespread cynicism.
But, corruption of the best is the worst. Those who do not believe it, do not punish the troops with the missions any more: they will thank you for it ”.
conclusion
The reader will apologize that I avoid formulating my own synthesis, because I would surely lack perspective, and above all because I try to lead you to your own conclusions (if the subject deserves your reflection).
Of course, successive postulates come to the management world, some more solid than others, and surely from all of them we can learn something; but I think I have witnessed in 30 years of good doses of hot air in terms of human resources management, also some adulterations of valuable doctrines, and also the corporate cynicism referred to in the previous paragraph.
However, things must be done better in companies, and I submit to them the belief that almost all of us can be more effective and happier in our professional performance; But this objective would be for the most powerful to be less greedy, and for other achievements that we could formulate among our good wishes for this year 2006.
I add that I have sent this article to Professor Fernández Aguado, who thanks me for the mention, and to Professor Cardona, without response, so I could not use, when referring to their doctrines, more information than that already published on the Internet.
