In the administration of human resources, it is possible to find supervisors who are in charge of labeling their subordinates according to the qualities that they unilaterally consider most outstanding in each person, ignoring the competencies that their employees possess and directing them to respond to their interests. This limiting and selfish behavior subjects the employee to develop a routine and constant task where they have competitive advantages, but at the same time it atrophies and ignores other elements that could add value to their personal and professional environment.
According to Greek mythology, something similar happened Ganymede, a young man who was taken to Olympus by Zeus who fell in love with his appearance and bearing in order to be displayed before the other gods while distributing the wine. The superb Zeus immediately limited Ganymede to be exhibited, based solely on his beauty, ignoring any other quality that the young man might possess.
When comparing the behavior of Zeus in relation to Ganymede and that of the supervisors with respect to their subordinates, the existence of another managerial syndrome can be noticed, which can be called The Ganymede Syndrome.
Ganymede Syndrome is that attitude oriented towards the exploitation of a subordinate's quality, limiting its development to a specific area or part of the process, which is assumed by the supervisor for its own benefit.
The practice of this managerial behavior seems to be completely in disagreement with the vision of the 21st century manager, who should be more oriented to the concept of integral professional.
Now, if organizations are leaving aside the concept of the specialist and are getting closer every day to the integral concept, shouldn't that same requirement also be aimed at subordinate personnel? How do you get to have comprehensive supervisors if you start from the base of an employee limited to specific functions?
Unlike traditional administration where power and decisions are made from the top down, it is worth reflecting on the last question asked in the previous paragraph. The training of the emerging supervisor is given by the amount of knowledge and skills that he has managed to develop throughout his tenure in the organization, that experience will give him a broader vision of the organization, but yes and only if he is capable of feeding each and every one of the qualities that can be useful to you in the organization, in other words, if you develop your skills.
Among the most outstanding characteristics that Ganymede Syndrome possesses can be mentioned:
* It appears in any type of work.
* It does not have a specific area of application.
* Exploited competition benefits the organization more than the employee.
* The supervisor presents the performance of the specific activity or job as the only opportunity to maintain employment.
When a specific task is required to be carried out on a routine basis, the task tends to detract from the interest, Herzberg's statement regarding "challenging work" is ignored and therefore productivity tends to decline.
As in Chronos Syndrome, communication is affected, either for the same reasons mentioned, or because the interest in offering ideas or solutions is lost since it is known that they will not be heard.
Therefore it is obvious to assume that a limited individual tends to become unmotivated. It is simple, if the human being does not satisfy the need to " become all that he is capable " or almost everything, he cannot be considered as a motivated individual.
Organizations cannot ignore the existence of a directly proportional relationship: the more interest the company has in the development of the individual, the greater the effort that employees with vision will put to the benefit of both the organization and themselves, which works exactly equal to the reverse.
In addition, once the individual experiences the limitation of their functions constantly and their interest in carrying out the activity decreases, a change in behavior usually occurs, because when faced with the demand to be guided by a unique and invariable pattern, resist is the immediate answer.
Ganymede Syndrome is a common disease in many organizations. Its practice is counterproductive since it prevents creativity and innovation and generates a break in the communicational and functional line of the employee.
Usually the supervisor who develops Ganymede Syndrome has a series of characteristics that distinguish it, these are:
* Presence of autocracy in the leadership style.
* Specific interest for a single quality of the individual, which benefits him directly.
* Limitation of the subordinate through the use and abuse of power.
This practice or the presence of this syndrome generates great conflicts in the staff, in addition to the feeling of limitation, demotivation and loss of interest in the quality and quantity of production are present. Routine work offers results but does not add value due to the low participation of employees.
As is often the case, there seems to be a little paradox regarding the syndrome itself. In most cases it is the supervisor who limits the employee to a single function, however, there are subordinates who consciously delimit their functions and do not accept that others are imposed other than those that he recognizes as such. This inverse attitude has been called the Effect of Ganymede Syndrome, understood as the voluntary dedication, by the individual, to the exploitation of a single competence, normally caused by the previous application of the syndrome, creating in the person a dominant paradigm that prevents you from glimpsing any other talents you possess.
The paradox is that when it is the supervisor who limits the employee to a single activity, he must dedicate himself to it because he is required to do so and alleging the reason for the hiring, the traditional administration understands it as the application of control over human resources and the very act of supervising. But when it is the employee who assumes that he has been hired for a specific activity and clearly delimits his functions, that same administration qualifies such a claim as incorrect.
The Effect of the Ganymede Syndrome, understood as that change in behavior aimed at accepting the fact of being limited or when the individual limits himself by placing barriers to his functions; it translates into impediments to achieve changes, adapt to them and / or develop behaviors that promote team building, knowledge transfer and value addition, which is totally contrary to the vision currently held by contemporary companies.
In order to identify and correct the presence of Ganymede Syndrome, or its Effect, in organizations it is necessary to:
1. Implement instruments that allow monitoring the behavior of supervisors in order to avoid behaviors that limit the performance of their subordinates.
2. Stimulate growth based on the development of skills.
3. Encourage the progress of people who have a profile oriented to innovation, creativity and relationship to opt for supervisory positions.
4. Guide the improvement of staff, for the benefit of the organization and themselves.
5. Avoid the concentration of power in a single person, facilitate the participation of employees in the processes and guide them to a comprehensive vision of their performance.
Both Ganymede Syndrome and its effect on individuals have to be diagnosed in contemporary administration, directing efforts to combat its practice and minimize its scope, otherwise any attempt to implement skills development programs will be reduced to theory.
