Just as the quality of any answer is related to the talent put into the question, what today we call Leadership has its strict relationship with the authority of the Leaders. Could it be that the latter also effectively have power?
From my point of view, I understand that many brain hours and rivers of ink have been invested in the analysis and treatment of Leadership (which I see as adequate but not complete as an approach).
I believe that now is the time to think about the issue from another angle, from another position: that of those who authorize it to be! I speak then of the Power of the Leaders. This is another topic that I am developing in my new book and I want to start sharing and exchanging opinions with the reader from my blog.
To begin with, I would like to highlight the need for the existence of three closely related elements:
- People (From the lat. Persōna) Individual of the human species. Needs to be resolved (From the lat. You need) Irresistible impulse that makes the causes work infallibly in a certain sense. Contract of intention of solution (From the lat. Contractus) Pact or agreement, oral or written, between parties that are bound on a specific matter or thing, and whose fulfillment may be compelled.
People are the actors, who have certain needs to solve, and therefore they look for the way to do it (what to do) and then agree on how to do it, who, when and in what way.
People and Needs to be resolved
I will try to relate what I have just explained to the situation that Argentines have to experience these days. These are the times of elections in the country.
According to the statistics, it seems that we are something like 40 million people. We all here need to organize, live and work in peace, therefore it requires people who deal with managing certain basic issues in pursuit of it (politicians) while others (others) deal with various situations that have to do with productivity.
The Agreement of Intent to Solution
In order to choose who are the ones who, understanding each one, can administer the country and try to solve the needs, it is then necessary to know:
- The People who will carry out the task (teams, skills, knowledge, experience, values, etc.) Their Proposals (strategic plans and action procedures)
About People and Needs I have already expressed the role they play. The new thing that I propose consists of thinking about the need of the requirement, of a "Contract of Intent to Solution" to which to adhere, or not. And I call the Agreement of Intent to Solution to the formal agreement between parties that are bound on a specific matter or thing, and whose fulfillment they can be compelled. It is the only way to later judge the result achieved and to determine the reasonableness of the management.
The non-existence of this, or its replacement by rhetorical proposals or models that are never made explicit, may constitute the worst trap for those who have the responsibility of authorizing those who must work for the required solutions. That is why we talk about people, only, and we all know that it is a mistake. The convergence of people and proposals committed to a Contract that makes it possible to verify whether the authorized is being complied with is therefore essential. This instrument is the one that empowers the Leader to demand compliance with the agreement.
Leadership, a shared responsibility
It is that not only those who are authorized lead, but also those who authorize. The Leaders. This is the core of the new approach to " leadership." Run the Leader's axis to share the power.
In this I am not trying to downplay everything we know about the Leader. I am simply proposing to highlight the leading and essential role of Leaders who must be aware of and responsible for the power they have.
We can take a different example because someone can say that the one I just gave has to do with the case of formal leadership, and in an eventual, unplanned situation, different behaviors can occur. You will see that it is the same in essence.
Last Sunday morning, I was participating in a religious celebration when, in the middle of it, an elderly person literally collapsed on the ground, the product (we later found out) of a serious pressure problem. Nobody knew what to do! The scene was chaotic. Imagine the story in the middle of the liturgical formality. The priest who did not manage to suspend the office, two that we ran over the fallen person to try to help him. Many people approached, another was paralyzed, until one of those present, calmly but demandingly, told the celebrant: "Father, ask them to call an ambulance!"
This person took over the situation. Believe me it was something not easy, although now in the story, out of context, it seems so. Fortunately, the person on the case today is well.
But let's go back to the moment of what happened, what happened there? I wish to rescue that that Sunday an important group of people were gathered there in celebration for a common need and the three basic conditions mentioned were met (people, common needs to be resolved and contract) and everything was developed in order. Suddenly something happened that changed the course of the situation which generated a new event, on the same stage with the same customers. Thus, the urgency of attending to the injured was presented, which "moved the focus of the original contract, adding a new one." Faced with the initial chaos unleashed, someone emerged from among the people and took the leadership of the situation in an attempt to resolve this “new contract to solve the new circumstance”.
So far we could say that this is a typical case of what is called Situational Leadership, and it is true. But I wish to continue and agree by saying that there was also, on the part of the others, an "authorization action to whoever took charge." And I want to emphasize this since imagine what would have happened if some other people competed to solve the thing in another way, increasing the chaos. And this could have happened since there were people who thought that it was not appropriate to suspend the mass for a moment and others who believed that it was good to call a doctor in the neighborhood, in short, not everyone worried in the same way.
Conclusion What I want to rescue is that there is always authorization for the Formal Leader to act. An authorization is given by the Leaders (who want to resolve the situation as much as the leader who assumes) delegating to whom or who they see as more apt to fulfill the contract that brings them together.
In the case of the first example, that of politics, choosing those who present the best concrete proposals (basis of the contract) and in turn possess the necessary capacities to carry them out effectively. In the second example, the one produced by an eventual event, where unexpected situations are generated in which authorizations must suddenly occur that release the action of a Situational Leader.
I am convinced that by being focused on the Leader's issue, we have not advanced too far into the depths of the Leader's Power.
It is that not only those who are authorized lead, but also those who authorize, the Leaders.
