For decades, graduates and managers, especially from large companies, have been attending numerous seminars on topics such as participation in meetings, presentations, communication, teamwork or leadership, without having experienced visible improvement in our professional performance. It is true that, in general, not much was expected from these brief apparently formative actions; But now, in these times, a noticeable improvement in performance does seem necessary, perhaps especially in relation to the human side of management. We can consider that a hundred years have already passed since Taylor's work on scientific management; since then, without this aspect of management having naturally disappeared (think, for example, of the postulated process reengineering),the other - the human aspect - has become increasingly important. This evolution, accelerated perhaps by the competency movement, has been uncovering some possible shortcomings.
Now, in the neosecular scene, there are several elements that push the individual to his permanent development: to continuous learning throughout his life. In our professional career, we are driven by competitiveness (both between companies and between individuals), but we are also driven by the need for fulfillment or mere legitimate ambition. In the case of managers, it is possible that a pending issue is the management of people (including their own: self-management), saving those who are saved and not to mention those who may have more pending subjects. In this 21st century we have more means for professional development, and also more tracks; The competency movement (driven, as is known, by McClelland) has come to open our eyes about it.We are already knowing in which competences the manager has to advance in order to better contribute to the collective results, regardless of the activity of his company. We are already identifying the importance of conceptual thinking, of a systemic and holistic perspective, of the capacity for analysis and synthesis, of well-understood intuition, of personal control, of empathy, of energy (without prejudice to peace) within, of influence, proactivity, vision of reality, flexibility, resistance to adversity, generosity, integrity, perseverance, savoring, mindfulness… All this, well interpreted Without adulterations, it was already important in the past, but we did not pay much attention to it. And also, all this, can improve appreciably if we set our mind to it.
When speaking of courses or formative actions for lifelong learning, it would seem that there is no longer room, for example, to speak as much of “direction and participation in meetings”, as of the techniques (allegation, inquiry, active listening…) of intelligent conversation and penetrating; It is no longer possible to speak so much about "speaking in public", as of didacticism, dialectical discipline or self-confidence; It is no longer possible to speak so much of "communication" or "negotiation", as of self-control, empathy, mindfulness, cooperation and establishing ties; It is no longer possible to speak so much of “analysis and resolution of functional problems”, as of a systemic-holistic perspective, and analytical-synthetic thinking; It is no longer possible to speak as much about leadership as about purpose, the common good, shared vision, evolution of mental models and moral authority. In a way,The capacity of our particular microscope has improved, and we see each of the parts where before we hardly saw the whole. Or it may be that the esoteric must already pass to the field of the exoteric, in benefit of authentic development…
If before, in the courses on meeting development, they talked about the convocation, the agenda, the preparation, the objectives, the conclusions…, now they would have to talk about reflective thinking, inferences, and the balance between the investigation and the allegation, of the different purposes with which managers meet, of the underlying problems and emotions, of synergy and shared objectives, of the spirit of belonging, of the suspension of formal power, of authentic presence, of intuition, from trust, from listening… More concrete, more defined skills or competences emerge; We could talk about microcompetences and microlearning, but make no mistake: it takes a long time to improve these specific cognitive or emotional skills, not to mention attitudes and behaviors.
It takes some time, but it seems to us that it is the only way for sensible improvement. We have not made much progress with the classic seminars, to which, by the way, we went with different attitudes and purposes:
- By imperative of the company or the boss; To oxygenate themselves, leaving the job for a few days; To improve the file or personal curriculum; To relate; To learn.
There could be a more nuanced reason, but the normal thing is that one, in the 80s and 90s, attended the courses driven by a mixture of the aforementioned ingredients, and that the expectations of quality corresponded, to some extent, with these reasons.. We wanted to highlight the desire to learn, but since we did not dare to put it first, we have put it last.
Probably, technical training was mainly about learning - the fifth, and apparently more legitimate, reason - but in traditional skills training for graduates and managers different reasons were mixed: let's not fool ourselves. Now, however, and as we have already agreed, the neosecular panorama invites effective learning and permanent development in relation to our professional practice. The mantra of lifelong learning came to one - this writer - in the early 1990s, working at Alcatel and through its president, Miguel Canalejo. However, it took me several years to digest it and try to make up for lost time. A little I think I have recovered, but I have been slow in self-knowledge and I confess it.
Self-knowledge and self-deception
Indeed, something fundamental continues to fail us and it had to be said now: self-knowledge. Without it, there is no room for improvement, but the truth is that, being inexcusable in managers, in this group, as in others, it is missed; not always, but often. The delphic mandate is in force: Gnothi Seauton. (It seems, by the way, and as the reader will recall, that self-knowledge was paralleled by a famous Confucius contemporary, Sun Tzu, in the Wu state of ancient China.) It is important that we are aware of our strengths and weaknesses in terms of knowledge, skills, character attributes, feelings, beliefs (mental models), attitudes, behaviors… It is important, but when self-knowledge fails we are not usually aware that it fails us.Perhaps we should be more receptive to good source feedback, and more focused on self-critical reflection, slowing down inferences.
Many experts insist on the importance of self-awareness for managers; for example, the students of emotional intelligence: Bar-On, Salovey, Mayer, Goleman, Boyatzis, Caruso, Cooper, Sawaf, Parker, Handley, Higgs, Dulewicz… For them, self-awareness constitutes an important dimension of intelligence. In short, an emotionally intelligent person, in addition to relating well to others and understanding them (interpersonal skills), knows and "relates" to himself (intrapersonal attributes).
They also point to self-knowledge and self-confidence, the experts in business leadership: Drucker, De Pree, Bennis, Kotter, Kouzes, Posner, Rost, Conger, Tichy… You can hardly trust a manager if he does not do it himself, Or if you do it without having passed the subject of self-knowledge (and then pass periodic reviews).
"Self-deception" is often spoken of, referring to the danger of having an exaggerated vision of our capabilities and perhaps a certain ignorance of our shortcomings and excesses. It seems like a risk among people who have excelled in some activity, because some might think they are good for almost everything. Speaking, as we are doing, of managers, having had some important success perhaps presumes, but does not necessarily ensure, subsequent successes. Nor can it be thought that, by knowing more about something, you know more about everything. Undoubtedly, good management of successes and failures must be done; but also a good digestion, to be able to pass the next periodic review of self-knowledge.
Self-deception (as a consequence of previous successes) can lead managers to dysfunctions such as inability to recognize mistakes, arrogance, thirst for power, rejection of criticism, narcissism, pursuit of unrealistic goals, flight up / forward, boasting, need to looking perfect, compulsive work habit or judgment to people in terms of black / white. According to Robert E. Kaplan, a manager with these traits is failure-oriented, even if these same traits are the result of poor digestion from previous successes.
We think that a manager who knows himself well will hardly be characterized by the emotional awkwardness suggested by said behavior. We have not done any formal study to demonstrate this, but we believe that sincere managers also tend to be with themselves; It is not that the self-deception is deliberate, but it has seemed to us that the minority of managers who make lies, cynicism or even corruption, everyday management tools, have, in general, a mistaken notion of themselves. The upright, on the contrary, seem to know something better, although without always approaching the ideal: we have already pointed out that the mandate to which Socrates insisted so much, is still in force.
Micro-soft-learning
Without Gates' permission, and not having much to do with computing, we did not know how to baptize him: call it what you want. It is not so much about acquiring knowledge as about acquiring self-knowledge, acquiring self-knowledge progressively while, at the same time, we are sensitizing ourselves towards improving our soft profile, and taking the first steps. We will take steps forward and some steps back, but little by little, we will arrive at a noticeable improvement, from which the environment and ourselves will benefit. The first thing we need to know is what we are like and what we would like to be to be more successful in our professional performance.
"Strive to be what you want to appear," Socrates also told us. This is not easy. It is not enough to cultivate the image and the ego, although supposedly it is done for the benefit of the company; it is not enough to contain emotions and gestures; it is not enough to follow the dress codes; It is not enough to play the role of busy manager every day; It is not enough to have a candle in different burials. It is not enough to be a good manager, diligent and committed.
If they know how to excuse me for the indoctrination, managers must generate the best performance of their own, but also that of their collaborators, always in alignment with the collective objectives of the organization. They must attend to the performance and development of all their collaborators, and not just their favorites. They must contribute to a desirable climate of legitimate professional satisfaction, based on the achievements and fulfillment of people. Your effort must be oriented towards collective results and not perverse ends; not in the service of spurious interests. Managers must be very aware of what they know and what they lack to know, but also of their level of intelligence, both cognitive, emotional and social. They must be aware of their beliefs or mental models, their scale of values, their attitudes, their behaviors.They must be aware of their position between integrity and corruption; of their situation between individual and collective interests…
Perhaps we should look at each other with a magnifying glass - better with a microscope - and make sure, through good source feedback, that we are well in sight: that we see reality: the reality of what we are. We must know our micro-strengths (the keys to our visible strengths) and our micro-weaknesses (the keys to our weaknesses). We must examine ourselves with the reference of our ideal professional profile, and be fully aware of the advantages derived from it and of the risks corresponding to our defects and excesses. All this at a micro level, in depth. It seems to us that what escapes us the most are the soft features. Let us attend more and better to the soft features that our professional performance requires of us. We can serve everyone, but with priority to those who demand our professional practice.Sorry for the "micro-soft-learning", which was a way of identifying learning by its substance, by its content. Next we will talk about e-learning, which identifies learning by the way, by the vehicle, so much of our day, in which it occurs.
E-learning and soft skills
Self-knowledge is necessary and lifelong learning inexcusable. Here any method is valid, but since e-learning seems like an avalanche principle, let's talk about it. We have already said that it takes time to improve our soft skills, and we add that its development requires different methods (blended learning, or b-learning, if you want to say so), without excluding coaching if you have a good coach. Well, it is true that, for the development of soft skills, large companies are networking short courses ("pills", they are called): "initiative", "creativity", "systemic thinking", "commitment", "Influence", "leadership", "conceptual thinking", "conflict management", "create relationships of trust", "empathy", "optimism and inner energy", "development of collaborators",“Personal domain”… It can be seen that all this stems from competency-based management, largely concurrent with the implementation of e-learning.
We already know that these short online courses cannot work miracles, but one can be left with the impression that time has been used. In a few hours, one can become aware of the true meaning of these competences, to better self-evaluate. And you can acquire the keys for further progressive improvement. Of course, this result demands a quality didactic design; a design other than blind sticks; a design that attracts and sustains user interest; a content design that is consistent with the organization's strategy and needs. If these online pills are not well conceived, not only will we not advance in self-knowledge and personal development, but we will also distrust the electronic method, which is already in doubt.
There are many voices that rule out e-learning for the development of soft skills (cognitive, emotional and mixed skills, values, mental models…), but, to this end, this writer does not dismiss good books or good articles, neither are good interactive multimedia designs on line (or off line). It will not be enough, but e-learning can be a good first step, as would a good conference. E-learning also has the advantages that everyone already knows. I insist: I speak of quality e-learning, of sufficient didactic quality; that it does not constitute a mockery for the intelligence of the user, that it broadens its horizons. One must, for example, know in depth the anatomy of empathy, or integrity, or creativity, or commitment, or holistic and systemic thinking…to know where you are and where you should or would like to be.
In terms of soft skills, e-learning can contribute to the foundation of learning, and even reach a certain height in building; but it is only a method, a continent. It is the content that substantiates our modest opinion: good e-learning content will be as well received and celebrated by users as bad content will be poorly received. One believes, in general, that the continents must adapt to the contents, and not these to those; But this seems like an open debate that acquires volume in the case of e-learning. Perhaps the reader knows the recent AEDIPE Library book "e-Learning: the best practices in Spain". In it, it can be verified that there are those who relativize the importance of the contents (or their quality) in order to achieve learning;but also that the majority seem to bet on the quality of the courses, for the benefit of the same learning and the consolidation of the method itself.
On the effectiveness of e-learning
Of those five reasons that we mentioned, related to the attitude with which we participated in training actions, we must highlight two when we talk about e-learning within the so-called continuous training: the first and the last. Our modest experience leads us to think that we participate in online courses both as a matter of company imperative, that is, to obtain the corresponding credits, and also, of course, to learn. In other words, basically through pure extrinsic and pure intrinsic motivation. Although they seem to be a minority, there are companies that, despite talking about success in the implementation of the system, relativize the importance of the content offered as coming to say (as we perceive it) to their people: “Learn as you can, but follow the courses online ”.
In the AEDIPE book to which we have referred, José Ignacio Díez, CEO of FYCSA, a provider of e-learning, says: “Who more and who less has been forced to acquire complex knowledge with precarious means. Let us remember the university, with the available textbooks or photocopies of the notes of the most studious of the class: more precarious content, impossible ”. But, in the same book, there are many other managers of large companies (Alcatel, UOC, SCH, Oracle, Endesa…) who do seem to bet on good quality content, to ensure learning.
There are, therefore, different and respectable views on the quality of content in e-learning, but there is also, by the way, on the concept of success. A study of “Best practices” carried out precisely by FYCSA (sponsor of the book), measures success with the start rate and end rate, and draws conclusions that shift the leading role of the content in favor of motivation. Without a doubt, a good motivation, intrinsic or extrinsic, favors the start rate and the end rate. But we say all this to remember that, in the face-to-face training, we related the success of the training with the four levels of Kirkpatrick and even with the return on investment.
It seems to us that we can speak more rigorously about success in e-learning when we evaluate its effectiveness as we did with face-to-face training. However, we believe that the development of soft skills would require a special interpretation of some of the Kirkpatrick levels mentioned, as well as a special strategy (and tactic) on the part of the Human Resources areas. Of course, people must be well aware of our needs in terms of soft skills and, specifically, of the advantages that these skills derive for the organization and of the damages that their lack causes.
