Without a doubt, leadership is one of the business management postulates to which we have added more adjectives (transformational, transactional, situational, relational, resonant, democratic, emotional, ethical, responsible, service, participatory, inspiring, empowering, charismatic, visionary…), and from which we make more diverse readings.
Perhaps its meaning should be questioned based on the profile of the new followers: the workers in the knowledge economy. Indeed, new models of leadership are emerging, although perhaps we continue to think, to a large extent, of workers in the industrial era.
The reader will have the opportunity here to disagree or agree as much as he wishes, but this writer would like to defend, from the outset, an interpretation of leadership that, without ruling out others that we will also identify, would require the sanction of the leaders:
"Condition of the leader perceived by the followers, which supposes a satisfactory relationship, shared goals and commitments, a display of efforts, and an impulse of wills and positive emotions."
In his case, the leader would thus be a guide of wills and efforts, a catalyst of positive emotions, within a group that recognizes it as such.
By bringing this relationship into the business framework, we have to think that managers-leaders would have to gain the cognitive and emotional adherence of their collaborators, after shared goals or objectives.
Without this adhesion, we could speak in the companies of managers, bosses, managers…, but perhaps not so much leaders, despite the effort we put into it. And when speaking of gaining membership, I would not mean - nor will the reader understand - that today's workers have to put themselves at the blind service of specific people, but, above all, of shared goals.
However, perhaps the relationship between managers and workers in the knowledge economy is not adequately reflected in the leader-follower model: I propose this reflection.
I believe, indeed, and although there are other ways of looking at it, that the new knowledge workers (university students, or those coming from vocational training or other avenues) - it is said that they are a key figure in the new economy - manifest themselves as largely self-led professionals (A new relational framework between companies and workers emerges), and they do not seem to follow in companies both leaders (except collusions or complicities), as well as goals or objectives that attract their interest, their attention and their psychic energy. But, after these first formulations, I also want to remember that leadership has been identifying with:
- Position at the head of the company, of a department, etc. Task of the chief executive, typically in a process of change. System, method or style of directing people. Function of managers, complementary to that of management. Family of skills interpersonal skills of the best managers. Specific ability to guide and energize others after common goals. Enthusiastic, contagious and inclusive attitude after a collective achievement.
In fact, in these times, rather than talking about leaders, this writer would rather talk simply about new managers and new workers; But, in submitting these reflections for consideration, I count on the new economy is still on the way or in the process, and that we will surely continue talking about leaders, although we will also do so with the emerging profile - which Peter Drucker drew in detail - of the new knowledge workers:
- Visible degree of personal and professional development.Digital and informational skills.Autonomy in performance and lifelong learning.Creative capacity and innovative attitude.Professional self-care and adherence to quality.In short, a valuable asset for the company.
Drucker also emphasized that these workers, whose relationship with the company is evolving, are more loyal to their profession than to their organization…, but I do not remember reading anything about their loyalty to great leaders, whose frequent greed, by the way, denounced the acclaimed teacher in one of his latest books. Naturally, when speaking of greed -or corruption, narcissism, cult of the ego, etc.- we cannot generalize, and in addition we should distinguish between powerful senior managers on the one hand, and managers or middle managers, of renewed role and reduced power, for other.
But, leaving aside the revealed abuses of some exemplary business leaders (it would be unfair to quote only Welch), and focusing on middle managers, it is necessary to underline the transition from a traditional hierarchical authority in companies to one more based on knowledge, and that of a directive function of command and supervision to another of support and service.
In my opinion, these trends call into question some aspects of the traditional leader-follower model.
But I now turn to relate my experience of searching for electronic information on a recent attempt to redefine leadership in the company: management by habits. The fact that a well-known training consultant, Fycsa (now integrated into “élogos”), uses this doctrine by Professor Fernández Aguado to preach a new way of exercising leadership, caught my attention in a moment of receptivity.
My approach to DpH
Just died Peter Drucker in November 2005, and wanting to see what was being said now about direction by objectives (50 years after the renowned father of modern management outlined this professional management system), I started to search the Internet, where I usually make serendipitous -interesting and casual- discoveries. I soon found fault with the system, and came across the so-called “habit management” (DpH), which seemed to be a necessary evolution of goal-based management (DpO) and value management (DpV). Then I also saw that a well-known Spanish e-learning provider, José Ignacio Díez (CEO of the old Fycsa, now integrated into “élogos”), offered DpH as a new leadership model, and also offered it as its flagship product for 2006:It should be an enriching contribution to the management of people in our time.
It interested me because I had never especially associated the DpO with leadership, so the DpH had to be something significantly different: perhaps less related to management, and more to leadership. Would the DpH come to correctly channel the management of people in companies, and perhaps preach values such as integrity or subordination to the community? What would be understood by habits?
Already when management by values emerged, I was surprised that it wanted to relate it to management by objectives, and that some people saw it as a substitute for it: I speak of the 90s.
For me DvV was not a bad idea, and it also seemed necessary to cultivate certain values in companies (beyond proclaiming them on posters), but it did not seem realistic to compare it with the DpO doctrine (which, if anything and in my opinion, had been adulterated in the application). In my opinion, it was necessary to continue working professionally to achieve important well-selected and formulated objectives, and it had to be done by being competent (there was also talk of management by competences) and acting, of course, within the cultural framework of the organization (beliefs, values, styles…).
In my search for information on leadership by habits (DpH), I came to a Deloitte & Touche study prepared by Miguel Ángel Alcalá, general director of the International Association for Management Studies: “The challenges of DpH are two: define which 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 ”. Damn, I thought; and I kept looking.
From Javier Fernández Aguado, one of our renowned experts and father of this new doctrine, I was able to read: “The company's objectives 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 ». I was left with the idea that the new leader should summon the best wishes and interests of each follower, and I did not want to interpret the disconnection when the boss leaves as a generalization.
Also from Miguel Ángel Alcalá, I could read: “With the management by habits (DpH) a systemic (global) consideration of the work and the person who executes it is established. The DpH, Along with the fruits of work, which various Central European authors call objective work (the external fruits of work), he tries to jointly perfect subjective work: what remains in man after having fulfilled his duty, what happens to himself. An identical objective work can imply subjective even divergent works ”. Again I was surprised.
From Isidro Fainé, CEO of La Caixa: “From a cold Direction by Instructions, it was passed 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".
I was already thinking about buying the book by Fernández Aguado, from whom I have others, when I agreed to a presentation by the e-learning provider company that I referred to earlier, Fycsa (now “élogos”), prepared by Sandra Díaz for a conference held in Madrid (2005).
I was not learning well what habit management meant, but my curiosity had been nurtured and I had finally accessed recent information related to the exercise of leadership. I could immediately read: “Habits, tendencies to repeat an act, can become virtues or vices.
Vices are habits that do not have a positive end for man, on the contrary virtues have the purpose of perfecting man and therefore imply positive acts (Aristotle, 2001). Analyzing the concept from the point of view of virtue, it can be said that they are acquired habits that facilitate the performance of good acts ”. (I understood that the quote referred to a modern version of Nicomachean Ethics, written by Fernández Aguado, and not to a recent reincarnation of Plato's disciple).
It seems that, among the habits-virtues that are proposed for the manager, there is coherence, and also the confidence that each collaborator will contribute the best of himself… But the fundamental or cardinal virtues are also used, to rename three of them and postulate perspective (for prudence), equity (for justice), balance (for temperance) and strength. According to the content of the presentation, Fycsa-élogos bets on the manager-leader who makes his virtues-habits visible, to serve as an example to his collaborators: “The management tool to implement the DpH is the behaviors of the managers who will serve of example to achieve the habits of the collaborators ”.
Likewise, I read: “The DpH is the achievement of the translation of the company's values into daily actions, seeking to overcome the institutionalization that can be provoked during the maturing process of a company and maintain motivation at convenient levels, which will result from ability of people and organizations to reinvent themselves, not to mimic behaviors ”. And also: “The manager must attend to all aspects of the person in an integral way.
The true leader conquers the will and the emotions of the collaborators, he does not manipulate them. Understand your wishes and decisions. Work intelligence, will and emotions. " (The latter produced some reservations when I put myself in the shoes of the follower; I would prefer to read that the leader must win confidence or adherence, after stimulating goals, and not so much intelligence, will and emotions; but perhaps he read already with prevention).
I also saw in the presentation a figure in which the DpO was presented as an advance over the direction by instructions (DpI) to which it replaced, that the DpV was presented as an advance over the DpO, and that the DpH was presented as an advance on DvV: the advance necessary to serve as doctrine for “exemplary leaders”. Just as leadership by instructions was identified with the term "leaders," the DpH was, in effect, identified with the term "exemplary leaders."
The reader will have his opinion, but I am reluctant to question the validity of the DpO (although it is necessary to take more care in the formulation of objectives), and to see it graphically surpassed or replaced by coherence with proclaimed values, or by a preaching and cultivation of virtues-habits. The DpO seems to me to be a solid professional method of managing people behind ambitious but achievable goals, while the DpV or the DpH seem to me more related to personal actions aimed at effectiveness, and with the styles of performance, or culture, of each organization (which logically formulates its own values or its virtues).
I read more things, but I think I have already reproduced enough sentences that tell us about the DpH, and I would just like to insist that, if I limit myself to the electronic information gathered, it is about having exemplary virtuous leaders who work intelligence, the will and emotions of the workers, and whose behavior will serve as an example to the followers.
This must be too simple a synthesis of mine, because Sandra Díaz pointed out a complex implementation process that involved:
- Management team. Design team. Internal tutors. External advisory team. Coaches. Program protagonists. Discussion groups. Trainers and referents.
The doctrine of Javier Fernández Aguado must be logically broader and deeper - he himself has confirmed this for me - and it refers to both technical (hard) and behavioral (soft) habits; but it aims in addition to the necessary improvement in behaviors (beyond the achievement of results), although this seems to depend on the habits and virtues that are proclaimed in each case, and on fidelity to them, without falling into adulteration. I certainly believe that professionals must be asked for results, and also behavior, if we agree that the end does not justify the means.
It is seen that the behavior habits of managers were not good enough, despite the many seminars that, on leadership, have been held in companies in recent years; It is not strange that some large organizations consider promoting it, but their contribution - that of leadership - to collective efficiency and quality of life in companies should be ensured.
I wish the behavior of all, managers and workers, was exemplary; But I am not sure that workers should guide their behavior by that of managers, or vice versa; maybe in some specific case it would be useful…
I would say that we are facing different tasks, different functions, different demands, different responsibilities… that demand different priorities in attitudes, values, beliefs, habits…
But let's go to the question I asked myself: does the leader make a habit? I think that habit (understood as virtuous forms of conduct) can make the monk (which neither), but not the leader.
I submit to the reader's consideration the belief that the leader is made by his followers; It would seem like a mere way of looking at it, but it is also a way of saying that the qualities of the leader would be determined by the followers…
But above all, I invite you to reflect on the need to review the leader-follower relationship, in the face of the relational changes that the new economy seems to bring.
What do i propose
Without underestimating the improvement of our habits, I dare to propose to you - going back on it - that we focus our attention on the new knowledge workers. We should not insist on a wrong or exaggerated elitization of leaders versus followers. In the name of managerial talent, we have spoiled many things for many young people “with potential”, and today we know it well.
In the knowledge economy and as it is consolidated, what counts is, above all, knowledge; management is still important, but knowledge, nurtured by lifelong learning and development, is vital and decisive.
Let's stop pampering managers too much and labeling them leaders, to attend, from professionalism and ethics, to continuous learning, knowledge, innovation, productivity and competitiveness of the entire organization.
I say that what counts is, to a great extent, knowledge, because today any fairly complex product has an essential raw material: knowledge.
Many products, without referring to the PCs themselves, are full of "intelligence", electronic or mechatronic engineering: automobiles, household appliances, telephones, cards…
Workers are an asset to the company to the extent that they know and can contribute to inexcusable innovation. They know more than their bosses and are aware of the importance of their knowledge.
Workers need companies, but they also need knowledge workers. The workers do not ask to be pampered, but they do ask that they be respected. (I think all of this was said by Drucker, quite clearly.)
Personally, from my life in a large company, I remember that what bothered me the most was that they asked me to do botches, that they didn't let me do things well; It is not that I was then an example of a knowledge worker (which I certainly lacked knowledge for), but I think that happens to the workers I am referring to: they like to do things well without there being a department of quality to hang their medals, and they like to respect their knowledge and creativity, without prevailing that the best ideas are those of the boss. They don't like any leader taking ownership of the merits of their learning and development. They do not like that authority be imposed on reason. I am afraid that they do not like to feel led by someone they have not chosen, although they do want to open up space for their emotions and intuitions,synergistically accompanying their knowledge.
Knowledge is indeed valuable because it constitutes the capacity to act; but, beyond being capable, we have to do it well, with good results: we have to be competent in all the competency profile (knowledge, technical skills, attitudes, intrapersonal strengths, social skills, beliefs, values, behavior habits…) that We are required, and we must equip ourselves with the metacompetences that ensure efficiency: among them, a kind of leading role in our professional activity, be called -beyond initiative- self-leadership, or self-control.
The term "self-leadership" may seem like a reaction to perhaps a somewhat flawed exercise in leadership, but we should all be the main players in our professional lives (not to mention life in general).
This postulate - "assumption of greater protagonism by each individual, in their professional performance" -, if they agree, would apply to both workers and managers; If the latter, in addition to leading themselves, were to lead their collaborators, they would have to do so according to their characteristics - those of the collaborators - and even differently at different times.
Let's take the good ideas of the DpH, and all the good ideas in general, but let's not lose sight of the emerging profile of the new worker, permanent learner, with a visible dose of autonomy, that the situation seems to be demanding. Perhaps, basically, it would be enough if we were all more professional, and more aware of our human dimension: almost nothing.
I finish by thanking the reader for passing by here for their attention. I only add that consultants have a tendency to cling to words -buzzwords- and perhaps self-leadership will start to sound, and even masters in this discipline are programmed; for me, it would be displayed in:
- Self-knowledge and self-criticism. Lifelong learning. Strive for achievement. Authenticity and integrity. Commitment and responsibility. Self-confidence. Objective to perceive realities. Management of attention and conscience. Self-control and integrity. Self-discipline and integrity. Work. Flexibility and adaptation to changes. Social contribution goals. Reflective thinking. Capacity for analysis and synthesis. Systemic perspective and vision of the future. Resistance to adversity.
Perhaps you can improve this profile that I propose to you, but I believe that these features should be present in all professionals, without distinguishing levels or sectors.
And now you will surely thank me for its completion, and I thank you for your attention. We astonish or dissimulate before what we read, but let's reflect on it.
