Managers-leaders have been talked about as bearers of great personal and professional virtues, as effective and upright supermen; This is done, at the same time that, in that same Management literature, we are proposed methods to manage a supposedly general incompetence of workers, who are being reduced to the condition of followers or resources. Perhaps, in the economy of knowledge and human capital, we should bet on professionalism and the leading role of all, instead of encouraging leadership in managers and follow-upism in workers.
Years ago and in a skeptical tone, a former colleague, a consultant with some experience, told me that the leadership of managers could be something else, but that it was being "50% free, and the other 50% fortuitous " As I stared at him without knowing what he meant, he added that I would reach the same conclusion, if I looked around me in addition to consulting books. At that time, what I had been seeing frequently were Human Resources managers determined to orchestrate courses, and more courses, to develop leadership in their companies, to "reinforce it"; but my colleague asked me to observe, if I could, the managers themselves at their posts.
Already in the 90s, both liturgy and doctrine were perceived, perhaps more noise than nuts, regarding the leadership of managers and other cultural changes. In large companies, the training and development areas had been orchestrating training programs for the "future leaders" and began to speak of "talent", instead of "potential". They were referring, yes, to managerial talent, and not to the talent of technical experts. A new, more personal and pervasive way of managing people seemed necessary, and different models of leadership or direction had emerged in the Management literature. The manager had to "manage", but he also had to "lead" his subordinates after attractive and challenging goals, well chosen.
Yes, leadership could be something else; He could orient himself to select goals, to define strategies, to outline the most suitable futures, both achievable and prosperous, to chart paths… But this generative, creative leadership, that of seeing beyond without losing connection with the environment, seemed to remain for the high leader. Attendees of leadership courses seemed to focus, in general, on the hierarchical relationship, the government (including the "motivation") of the workers. It cannot be generalized, but there seemed to be more to controlling people than setting attractive goals; it seemed to be a certain intermediate leadership; that subordinates follow their bosses.
It may be that, in everyday language, leadership has indeed lost some connection to goals, and perhaps it should be regained. Of course, when goals are appealing to technical professionals, corresponding magnetism can work, and perhaps not so much reliance on follow-up after leaders. However, the terms "leader" and "follower" do not seem to be part of everyday language but, more often, of the language of training, consulting, or pomp and circumstance.
Of the polysemy of leadership
When talking about the leadership of managers and simplifying, sometimes we emphasize the position they occupy, that is, their management power and responsibility in the company, and others, we emphasize their relational-emotional profile, that is, the moral authority over their subordinates, the ability to activate your psychic and physical energy. It is worth dwelling on these two basic and synergistic supports for the meaning of leadership in the company: position and relationship. There are two meanings and, if you like, two faces of his unique face in the company: that of formal power (as boss) and that of the most personal authority (as leader), received from subordinates.
It could be said that, by its nature, moral authority would be lost at the first discordant sign, so that, in Management literature, leadership -expression of a certain perfection in management- has been associated with integrity, good work, a certain empathy with subordinates and many other powers and strengths that, however, are not always exclusive or more typical of managers. There is, for example, a national management model, Habit Management, which refers specifically to prudence, justice, strength and temperance, as “habits that perfect leadership” (taken from a book by Sandra Díaz and Marián García, edited by Élogos and Mind Value). There will be no lack of those who think that, in addition to being prudent, the leader must sometimes be bold…; but welcome, without reservation,the cardinal virtues well understood, both in managers and workers.
It is avoided, yes, to tie the leader with a wrong or perverse management; in fact, well-known national business experts choose to distinguish between leaders and troublemakers, to cite corrupt, wicked rulers from the past in the second group. They are branded as mere "troublemakers," even though myriads of individuals, out of interest, conviction, or obligation, followed. Also in our time we have undoubtedly met rulers followed and appreciated by crowds, who have ended up causing much more rejection than adherence.
Jumping into our very different environment, the business environment, it also becomes an interest, conviction or obligation that moves subordinates-followers in organizations. As is known, within companies companies have been regarded as corrupt executives and manipulators, outside the law or ethics, with and without change processes underway; they are held as leaders until, in their case, they are discovered and even later.
The most active defenders of leadership - promoters or champions of their development in companies - try, in fact, in their arguments and logically, to separate the term from its darkest aspects and protagonists, to polish the image of leaders, to preserve their brilliance. seductive, to proclaim the need for leaders, also for the way out of the crisis we are experiencing (and which would not have been reached, it will also be thought, without the immoral practices of other leaders). It would seem that the leader becomes the superman of Management literature.
Good leaders we certainly need, but the risk is there; there is a risk that they will use the treasured trust plus for their own benefit, and not for the collective benefit; There is a risk that they will loot their businesses and send workers into unemployment. The supposed empathy (emotional and cognitive) of the leader towards his followers, like intelligence in general, can be supportive and systemic, or selfish and perverse.
It is necessary, of course, to align with those who safeguard or defend the term "leadership", if this is to preach the effectiveness, exemplary, excellence of managers; But arguments also arise for a possible role as the devil's advocate. No, leadership would not be desirable in itself, but based on the corresponding ends and means deployed (which, for example, Peter Drucker already pointed out). Perhaps professionalism should be encouraged in all, and not so much leadership in some and follow-up in others… But these paragraphs do not try to induce consensus, but also dissent, and thus encourage the own reflection of the interested reader, more adjusted to the realities from your environment.
From the role and power of the leader
In social life we see as a leader that family member or friend who is usually right; sometimes and to some extent, we ask for your help, we ask you to think for us. However, in the company the leader is almost always right because, gee, the boss; because it has, yes, powerful reasons. It would be said, as that brilliant Norwegian playwright (Ibsen, in fact) already pointed out, that reason would be of little use to the subordinate, not having power… On the other hand, the double nature of his authority, the double face of the leader, can catch a counterfoot to the subordinate-follower, if he suddenly transits, with a sharp turn of the head, from leader to boss.
Also, instead of doing it double-sided, we could talk about the two hands of the manager-leader: the right and the left, the right and the left… In these hands -perhaps more in the second- there are those who also place, yes, a sinister skill: the Machiavellian management of subordinates, the machination after undeclared ends. In effect, the subordinate can associate leadership with a climate of mutual trust, as long as the leader limits it to gaining the trust of subordinates, for purposes not always declared. Whether or not they present themselves as leaders, welcome are the many -yes, many- effective, excellent, upright, supportive managers…; But not everyone is - either because they don't want to or because they can't - and we run into too much corruption.
There are, of course, organizations in which leadership is hardly mentioned, perhaps to banish any trace of unwanted follow-upism; as there are also many managers who, despite having attended leadership courses, do not put on the corresponding nimbus when they arrive at their office every day; that they wait for the supposed followers to grant them, in their case, the relational status of leader… But yes: we have to accept that leadership constitutes a buzzword in the literature and teaching of Management, and that in the profile of the manager-leader As it is being drawn, they are combined, merged -perhaps confused-, the power received from the company and the authority gained before the subordinates.
A definition circulates in this regard that I have read in different texts, and that I have heard, also repeatedly, in different calls for managers. He comes to say that leading is getting people to want to do what they have to do. This phrase-meme appears to be a successful synthesis, and points, yes, to both sides of leadership: on the one hand, the formal power to determine and order what is to be done and even how, and, on the other hand, to moral authority he needs to instill in subordinates an intimate desire to do so.
But it is also an idea that seems to start from the premise that individuals work, but "don't want" to do it to a sufficient degree; from the premise - linked to the beliefs of McGregor's “X” profile - that workers need a boss-leader who activates their will to the optimum degree. In fact, the message-meme is being constructed like this: “ the true leader is the one who makes subordinates want to do what they have to do, the one who makes them happy, the one who works and conquers their intelligence, their will and their emotions... ”.
Obviously, there are also other models or conceptions of leadership that attribute greater prominence and professionalism to workers, especially knowledge and thinking workers; but it would seem that, with sensible frequency, the relational side of leadership is oriented, yes, to the motivation of subordinates, assuming that the chief-leader -perhaps as a modern foreman, master of subtle arts- has to motivate his subordinates, supposedly lacking in will and professionalism. The intention may be more ambitious, and there is, in fact, sometimes talk of "conquering" intelligence, will, emotions…
Despite these ambitious conquests (perhaps somewhat invasive), it is clear from the same business ideas that "the true leader does not manipulate his followers." Precision seems timely, because it has been repeatedly pointed out that from leadership to manipulation there is only one step. Geoff Webb speaks of “a thin line”, and Professor Arsuaga argued years ago, without hesitation or ambiguity, that “in the company, leadership consists of manipulating”, and he bet on collaborators who thought for themselves (surely there is no other way to giving expression to treasured human capital).
There are at least a dozen manipulative practices that are surely familiar to more than a few workers with some experience: promises, motivational harangues, promulgation of memes, generation of debt of gratitude, smoke screens, concussed charges, commission-cheating, flattery… They work better to junior followers than to seniors, but obviously these practices are not taught in leadership courses; about leadership training there are other reflections.
Leadership training
The label "leadership" is widely used in management training, even when the hierarchical relationship is not directly focused; It seems to be an attractive label, which consultancies and business schools frequently handle. But of course training actions are orchestrated aimed directly at leadership development, perhaps focusing on some specific model, among the many existing on the polysemic term. Sometimes these are even brief online pills, lasting just an hour or two.
If there is a personal memory, it was up to me about ten years ago to design one of these pills online, for the development of the "leadership" competence in hundreds of young managers of a large company. I never thought that users were going to improve their profile of leaders in this way, but in any case, the objective was subject to level 3 of the competition, to ensure that no one became more leader than their hierarchical superior. I remember the experience because of many details, but also because of the reflections aroused in me by what I, perhaps wrong, interpreted as a paradoxical limitation. By the way, what I recommended then was to read the book The Paradox, by James C. Hunter.
The duality (position and relationship) of leadership can be seen, of course, in training (in its content) that is deployed in companies for managers for this purpose. Initially, it is possible to think that the manager is a leader for the sake of his position, and not so much for the leadership courses; although without a doubt all the training contributes to a better performance of the position, and, as a secondary effect, to the strength of the leader.
As for the less positional and more relational side of leadership, the condition is not given by the courses either, but by subordinates; although the cultivation of certain personal traits can contribute to the boss-leader gaining their trust and adherence. Of course, this achievement should be more a consequence than a visible objective; more an effect generated, than a goal to conquer.
As my former colleague used to say, it may be that the leadership is partly "free" (the consideration is not given by a diploma, but included in the occupied managerial position), and partly "fortuitous": subordinates can see their boss as a leader, or not seeing it as such (depends). Perhaps and often, this depends more on those than on the boss, as also the circumstances influence and not a little. The boss may present theoretical leader traits without being perceived as such, and may not present them, and yet provoke in his subordinates a certain magnetism after the results, some energizing positive emotions.
Final messages
Surely, there is little in the company more satisfying for an individual than a stimulating job and a boss who sees a leader; But, neither is the work always consistent with the individual's competency profile, nor is the boss perceived as a leader. Relationally and in general, workers do not seem to see their bosses as leaders, nor do they see themselves as followers, but as subordinates. The company, also (even within the knowledge economy), insists on seeing them as human "resources", and not so much as carriers of valuable human capital. At the positional level, however, there seems to be more space for the term “leadership”, when it leads to a good end (prosperity).
Let the interested reader reach his own conclusions, without losing sight of the fact that all this is more complex… Although it can also, without a doubt, be made easier: there are those who legitimately note a simple synonym between "management" and "leadership", as there are also Who appreciates it between "human resources" and "human capital", between "innovation" and "technological renewal", or between "quality" and "following the norm"… Yes, the concept of leadership can be perceived as complex or simple; In this regard, there are authors who speak of “managing with simplicity”, while others propose apparently complex management systems, which require long phases of implementation, with the intense help of external consultants.
It was a matter here, based on a no doubt particular vision (that of this writer), to encourage reflection on the fact that the preaching of leadership in the company does not seem to have led us to the desired levels of managerial quality, at least in our country. As well as the equally desired productivity and competitiveness, no matter how highly qualified (the most overqualified in the European Union) our workers are. I hope you have found reasons to agree and disagree, to the benefit of your conclusions. Thanks for your attention.
