We may not know very well what we call managerial skills; perhaps, considering the evolution of this label, it is no longer all skills, nor is it limited to managers. On the other hand, we have been orchestrating training actions in this area for a long time, and I continue to hope - recognized experts say it - lacking managerial quality. Sometimes, for example, we also talk about leadership, talent, commitment and even innovation, and we don't have the same meanings in our heads… In short, it seems appropriate to display and provoke reflections.
For some time now, as a consultant and due to a certain dissatisfaction with the general results of the training, I wonder what we have to understand by "managerial skills", and why we usually separate this buzzword from that other, even more resounding, "leadership", and even another: the almost thunderous "talent". I confess that always, before and after Ulrich, I thought that by talent I had to understand an innate ability to do something especially well, both in the field of management (managerial talent) and in the technical fields of knowledge (technical talent).
I also ask myself questions about other diverse subjects, and I hope that the reader will accompany me in the cultivation of the reflective-critical thought that Dewey already spoke about; But, would it really be timely and profitable to put more order in relation to the so-called "managerial skills"? I think so, and I do not stop to think whether it is up to me to suggest it, or should it be up to the official management experts.
I have detected, around this issue of management skills, some ideas that, although formulated by the national management establishment, seem questionable to me; But I will avoid extending myself in identifying, as possible errors and delusions, what is shown to us as successes and abstractions. As a critical thinker - and well seems to remember what is included in the lists that follow -, I will submit some reflections for your consideration; I am moved by the desire to provoke theirs - those of interested readers - so that, if possible, professional development efforts end up being more fruitful and encouraging.
The critical individual (as a stereotype):
- Look for flaws, failures, present a negative attitude, believe in good judgment, rush to inferences, generate mistrust and insecurity, often have reproaches, see above all the bad, identify failures and blame, denote dissatisfaction, admit everything endorses his judgments. Based on his mental models. He is stubborn and inflexible.
The critical thinker:
- Seeking truths, Presenting an exploratory attitude, Wanting to have good judgment, Identifying his inferences, Generating confidence and security, Often having doubts, Finishing seeing the hidden, Identifying causes and consequences, Denoting curiosity, Contrasting all information, Being aware of his prejudices. It is flexible, reasonable and complete.
After this precision on critical thinking, I have to say that I have already written and published on the Internet (with a pseudonym, to reserve a more elaborate later analysis) some improvised reflections on this during my vacation last summer, in a relaxed environment and with my cat close by. suing me for his stroking ration. Thousands of visits to the page (even signing with an absolutely unknown name) soon made me think that perhaps the topic might be of interest, and I did indeed intend to approach it more formally, after incubating more elaborate messages. Several months have passed, and I attack again, if the reader allows me the expression.
What do we usually understand by managerial skills
I am not satisfied when, on occasions and for example, we merge or confuse the idea of "human capital" with that of "human resources", nor would it be very satisfactory to remain in identifying management skills with so-called soft skills here, because, at lack of precision, we would add an oversimplification. Perhaps, in practice, we agree on the following broad cross-sectional display for "managerial skills":
- Hard knowledge of the organization, the market, competition, the economy, globalization, etc. Soft knowledge, related to current and interesting topics, such as social responsibility, conciliation, equality, mobbing, etc. Skills soft & hard management, coordination, supervision, organization, planning, catalysis of change, leadership, etc. Cognitive abilities, such as systemic, conceptual, connective, analytical, synthetic, analogical thinking, etc. Intrapersonal strengths, such as flexibility, self-knowledge, the desire for achievement, lifelong learning, etc. Social skills, such as empathy, respect for others, oral and written communication, public speaking, etc. Attitudes, values, mental models, feelings and everything most intimately "endogenous" of the individual,subject to modulation. Habits of conduct that reflect the corresponding corporate style and contribute to the desired image for the company.
How do they perceive it? Do we think, as I have seemed to perceive myself, of these kinds of things when we speak of "managerial skills"? I submit this deployment to you for consideration, to underline the idea that perhaps not everything is skills, nor is it exclusively for managers. In fact, it is becoming increasingly cumbersome (you can disagree: cheer up) dividing the world of work into managers and workers, or leaders and followers. But also, does management consist in obtaining results through other people, or does it consist, perhaps more in accordance with the economy of the 21st century, in facilitating that other people obtain results? Which vision or mental model would be most useful in the knowledge and innovation economy? It remains open, although you already perceive my modest enlistment.
I have seen how a distinction is often made, in management literature and continuing education catalogs, between "managerial skills" and "leadership"; as if leadership were something else, or addressed to elite recipients; as if, with the term leadership, you wanted to flatter the chosen ones, or the students of the master's degrees, or the bearers of managerial talent. Maybe the leadership is for the most directives, and the managerial skills for the least executives… Of course, they are two different buzzwords: leadership is talked about a lot, and sometimes even perhaps questionable things are said, and of " managerial skills ”is even spoken in the Official State Gazette.
Professional profiles in the 21st century
I would suggest that all professionals in the knowledge and innovation economy (characterized by a certain desirable dose of self-management) should cultivate in our profile a technical part and a management part, although in some the former prevails, and in others the latter: What do you think? As for leadership, and for the benefit of Covey's effectiveness, of Fritz or Senge's personal mastery, of Gardner or Goleman's intrapersonal intelligence, and of the SuperLeadership of Manz and Sims, perhaps we should all be self-led by shared and assumed goals. Being the attractive goal, there would be no need to abuse the buzzword; It seems to me that a good goal already generates a magnetic field, and it doesn't take that many leaders.
If they allow me forcefulness, I would not go around the bush or make the partridge dizzy: I believe that, instead of insisting on new and frequent leadership models (which seem more, sometimes, of follow-upism), we should draw new profiles of managers and workers, more in line with today's economy. If we trace these profiles with the intention of facilitating the corresponding professional development, then we must define them well. Then and without a doubt, organizations are sovereign to work with their own profiles, approximate or not to theories, but do you want to join me in the reflection?
Surely and apart from the specificities of each organization - it is a consideration that perhaps we should stop at - there are different types of managers (technicians, functionaries, managers of employees by instructions, managers of professionals by results, project managers, mixing of all…) and different types of workers (of knowledge, thought, structured tasks, services, mixing of everything…), and the needs are not the same: do we dwell sufficiently on these considerations? That said, we could focus, for example, on the figure of a technical manager who surrounded himself with knowledge workers (such as Peter Drucker drew them), and who demanded more intelligence than obedience. This would be starting to materialize.
And we could also focus, in parallel, on the figure of skilled workers, lifelong learners, loyal to their profession, who perhaps have come for their (technical) talent and vocation, and to whom we demand results: would they not also need a good part of the skills we have called "directives"? Why do I insist on it? Because maybe - maybe yes, maybe not - we are leaving new knowledge workers, also thinking workers, also innovation (or creative) workers, also learning workers, out of professional development initiatives. As if the only talent that mattered was the manager; as if the knowledge resided only in the managers; as if innovation was forged only at the controls.
Don't you think that, when McGregor's Theory X was abolished, at the dawn of the 21st century, in the neosecular scenario of a knowledge and innovation economy, managers would have been more foreign ministers, and fewer interior ministers? Yes, it depends, it depends… By the way and in large organizations, who do we call managers? To those who have an office, they assume the dress code, cultivate their ego, saturate their meeting agenda, display gestures of power everywhere, and consider themselves leaders, and also coaches, and also brilliant and talented, because they do so. they said at their business school, where they paid for and followed a master's degree, and did a lot of experiential learning, and they also told them so in their company, where they sometimes attribute potential to the clones of the chief executive,and others to the most petulant?
Still there? I hope that they have dismissed this caricatured vision, because Malcolm Gladwell has already told us about the danger we would be running in the myth of talent, long before he spoke, also brilliantly, about intuitive intelligence. Remember: I do not intend to be right, but to deploy shock formulations and make you reflect. Damn me if you want, but this purpose gives me more freedoms and you more surprises.
In favor of - and in pursuit of - productivity, I would propose to cultivate the professionalism of everyone, managers and workers, respecting the former, but also the latter. Bad thing - I think - if we continued to see expert professionals as mere resources, collaborators, subordinates, employees, followers or coachees, and ensured their submission through particular doctrines and liturgies, which attributed to the top executives the status of high pontiffs, already the managers the officiating (I hope this is no longer done, but I fear it was done). Bad thing, because we would be defending the status quo, but perhaps we would not promote the use of human capital after collective effectiveness.
Neither emotional nor cognitive intelligence, nor commitment, nor professionalism, nor integrity, nor intuition, nor responsibility, are the heritage of managers-leaders: they are the property of human beings, and therefore also of workers. Especially if, having overcome that first McGregor theory, we talk more about the second, and specifically about expert workers, managers, permanent learners, committed to results, lovers of things well done, willing to innovate… Perhaps we should promote this profile more than the of mere "followers".
The deployment of "managerial skills"
I am afraid that we will find, in the training offers and, for example, courses on holding meetings that continue to talk about the convocation, the agenda, punctuality, the participation of all, the conclusions and action plans, the decision-making by consensus or by consent…, but conversational skills are not addressed at all… What do we know about conversational skills; or informational; Or those necessary for the inexcusable drive of well-understood innovation, beyond mere technological renewal and continuous improvement?
Look at what is in the catalogs of consultancies and business schools, behind the label of "managerial skills". Do you find any way to improve the cultivation of conceptual, analytical, logical, systemic, synthetic, connective, inferential, divergent, critical, exploratory, reflective, lateral, abstractive thinking…? Do we really want to make way for genuine intuition, or do we still wait, as we did for emotional intelligence, which we finally associate with the concept of leadership, perhaps in need of content? Do they find the keys to properly translate the information we handle into applicable knowledge, and to sound decisions? Do we really want to free common sense and intelligence, or just apply the rule, follow the procedure, and have answers like that when asked?
I fear that we will continue to find leadership courses - successive models are continually appearing, as if the previous ones were unsatisfactory - somewhat removed from the realities of the knowledge and innovation economy, and rather oriented towards the adulation or elitization of managers. I do not wish to rule out with this that there are also good training programs on the market on how to lead expert professionals in the 21st century (how to direct them to self-manage after agreed goals); But yes: the leadership partridge, more than dizzy, seems to be in a deep coma, irreversible. Let me bring you a few things I have read from our management experts (so-called top ten):
- “The leader has to make people want to do what they have to do; not that an employee obeys him out of fear or reward, but motivated by the real value of the action. "" A good leader is one who knows how to get the best out of his collaborators and thus, leadership and coaching are practically synonymous "." 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 leader must ensure that the person conquers the truth of himself in his actions, and, in parallel, the full good for himself, with his conduct: living the truth about himself. well done in every act, and the realization of the good subordinated to the truth about his own being. ”"The fundamental habits with which the leader is to serve as an example to his people are prudence, justice, strength, temperance, patience, joy, good taste, boldness, punctuality…".
Of course, Peter Drucker would insist that leadership is not so much about skills as it is about goals, and if a goal appeals to me, I don't need a leader to lead me; But is this the mental model of hierarchical relationships that you want to bet on, in this emerging economy of knowledge and innovation? If so, go ahead; but it seems to me that the previous formulations suppose an excessive conceptual distance between management professionals and technical professionals (perhaps also talented, geez, in their fields). Okay: everything is more complex… Let's go back to "skills".
Are there really any faculties, strengths, abilities, attitudes, feelings, values, etc. that are worth developing or cultivating, for the benefit of effectiveness and career satisfaction? Of course it does: let's go to the cognitive faculties, to the use of thought (which comes to be “knowledge in action”). Let us focus on conceptual, analytical, logical, systemic, synthetic, connective, deductive, inductive, abductive, divergent, critical, exploratory, reflective, lateral, abstractive thinking… Of course, it can be improved in all this, and that doing it is differentiating. These are, also, and by the way, the authentic endogenous learning tools necessary for inexcusable lifelong learning…, apart from the celebrated Google tool (which is what I heard a speaker say, at an IIR conference on e-learning,that some users pointed to the popular search engine, as the main online learning tool). Something must be happening in the e-learning sector, but that is a question for another day: let's continue.
Let's go to personal strengths. What do we do to develop self-knowledge? What, for a more objective and complete perception of realities? What, for integrity? Is integrity a value, or an inconvenience? Do we know Seligman's list? Do we relate our personal strengths to the demands of the position we occupy? Do we resist stress well, or do we succumb to it and also not realize it? Are we able to apologize, if necessary? Are we sufficiently aware that there are different mental models, and that things are not always as it seems to us? Do we govern our attention and our time? Have we heard of mindfulness, or do we live some distance from ourselves?
Let us focus a little better on interpersonal relationships. Do we respect each other? How are we, yes, empathetic, in each of its very diverse expressions? Do we put ourselves in the shoes of others? Do we know what it means to communicate? Do we apply the win-win principle? As managers, or as tutors of fellows or juniors, do we use our level of power with professionalism and restraint, or do we abuse, taking advantage of widespread impunity? As ordinary professionals, do we empathize with bosses in their difficult task, before condemning and cursing them?
Let us also focus on values. I am afraid that in this of the values there is also some confusion. Is it about what customers value us for, or is it what the company, in accordance with its interests, values in its people? I say this because I heard one of our official experts point out joy as a capital value, and I was wondering if (cynicism and stupidity ruled out in that prestigious top ten member) one should always be happy, even if he was the victim of comparative grievances, Either they paid him very little and made him work a lot, or he would simply have had a neurotic, harassing, Machiavellian, corrupt, authoritarian, paranoid or mediocrity leader in the cast, or perhaps insufferable collaborators, or arrogant clients,of those who think that suppliers are inferior beings…, except for error or commission.
On the other hand, I suspect that there may still be a place where values such as proactivity and boldness are postulated, but that, in practice, submission to the boss is more prevalent. Yes, because… sometimes we must be prudent, and others, bold; sometimes we must speak, and speak well, and others, be silent; sometimes we must be optimistic and enthusiastic, and other times, realistic and perhaps pessimistic; some, subordinate and submissive, and others, proactive and autonomous… The boss, in the periodic evaluation, will be in charge of telling us that we have not been right when everything. I am afraid, that instead of professionally evaluating the results, it has been chosen (I hope it will no longer be done), in some case of a large company, to evaluate the faithful follow-up of curious doctrines and liturgies; evaluations that are often left (or left) as sinners, infidels, heretics…
I know that I am scattered, but it is that all this gives to speak a lot… Suppose you need to improve your creativity, initiative, communication, assertiveness, empathy, systemic perspective, intuition and perception of realities, and also your (now masculine) optimism, self-control, conceptual, analytical, synthetic, connective, inferential, abstractive, exploratory, critical thinking… Can we improve in all these soft skills, through a face-to-face, online training, or blended course? Well yes, up to a point; The complicated thing is to find some of these programs, guides or learning aids in the market, from the expectation of maximum effectiveness, with the minimum effort and noise. There are competency models, but are they updated and adapted to the changing realities in the 21st century? I say this because if they were not, they would not work.
The development of these "skills"
We should know ourselves, from the multiple perspectives of personality, knowledge, the competency movement, the demands of the emerging economy… Yes, in addition to pilgrimage to Delphi in the distance and time, all professionals should adhere to the current of competences, and we should also be aware of the emerging realities in the economy. This means, among many other things, that we should all be very clear about what productivity, human capital, serendipity, empowerment, self-knowledge, temperance, stress, critical thinking, and quality of life at work consist of., positive psychology, globalization, systemic thinking, professionalism, integrity, empathy, mental models, intuition, intelligent organization,the strategy, the creativity… and even the peripate.
All with the intention of starring in our work, delivering intelligence and not just obedience; if we were only asked for obedience, we could not be productive: why learn, if then our knowledge were to be partially lost? A good course (even digital, online or offline) can help us to properly interpret all these concepts that, about "managerial skills", I mentioned. A good course can also help us to identify the advantages that certain competences bring us in our specific performance, and the disadvantages that their lack entails: a whole inexcusable sensitization.
But, in addition to raising awareness, a course (whether it is face-to-face, e-learning, blended…) can help us in self-evaluation, without excluding that at the same time we get feedback from a good source. What are the competency requirements of our work? To what extent do we cover or satisfy them? What is missing, or surplus, in our profile? Which learning is the highest priority? Do not be suspicious of e-learning in general, but, in your case, only of courses or readings that, with reason or genuine intuition, inspire mistrust. We should all be lifelong & lifewide e-learners, if only as Google users.
Nevertheless, I would like to defend orchestrated e-learning, whether on or off platforms, as a valuable complement to other possibilities or channels; but especially if it generates a learning (knowledge and skills) "faster", "more effective" and "more pleasant". Last year I was at a conference at the Casa de América (Madrid), where Francesc Trías (D´Aleph) displayed very timely and rigorously nine "keys to the effectiveness of e-learning", nine "quality indicators" of remote training with the help of ICT: the communication-dissemination of the course, the organization and control of the process, the catalytic environment, the implication of the command, the tutelar follow-up… The ninth was the quality of the didactic resources, although we agreed that it was the most important.
Actually and as a learner (which I have as a permanent learner, lifelong & lifewide learner, although I also design courses), this writer only needs good information to have access to; I don't need much of anything else. If I have suitable information in depth and form, I do not need large exogenous contributions. I remember that decades ago, I interpreted the courses as a necessity of the training areas (not mine), to later report many hours of orchestrated training; But now I do not measure learning by hours, but by incorporated human capital, and with this mental model I star in my action in this regard.
In line with the above, I sometimes have doubts as to whether e-learning platforms are at the service of the user, or that of the training departments; Personally, if I do not have a good course, I prefer to go for a walk on the Internet, with the help of the search engine, and it certainly bothers me that (on the platform) they watch me while I learn, and measure my time spent. I remember making serendipitous discoveries while surfing the Web, which, however, rarely happens to me when attending a conference or taking a packaged course.
Participating a year ago in a round table, within a conference on e-learning, and to the amazement of the moderator, who defended the need for platforms, I said verbatim that I hated being watched while I learned: I do not know if they will invite me to more … I, late acrates, I bet convinced by the informal learning and the autodidactismo, without discarding nevertheless the e-learning (platafórmico or extraplatafórmico) when it is advantageous.
Well, maybe face-to-face training is not always effective enough either, and I am worth the example I heard at the Casa de América, about the case of a time management course. Of course, attendees can say at the end of a course that they liked it a lot, without having to do with the application of what they supposedly learned (in fact, I would say that what we should manage better is attention, and not so much time). This happens with the courses and with the conferences: I find lecturers who transmit valuable and applicable teachings to me, and also others -in fact, speakers- who give me a good time, without transmitting sensitive teachings to me. Remember that the Thinking Heads agency describes your business as "oral entertainment for select audiences."
In any case, I usually refer to what I call "total learning"; Now I only tell you that, as well as in terms of knowledge, we have to learn both what others already know and what nobody else knows, in terms of skills, let's not limit ourselves to dictionaries or directories of competences: we do not accept limits, nor do we accept alienating doctrines that generate stupefaction. If we are forced to hide, let's do it, but let's maintain our dignity as intelligent human beings. Naturally, it is false that people are stupid; but some very "wise" executives and managers do not know it.
Final messages
You can talk about all this much more and much better: I leave it to you, if you consider it of interest. For my part, I think that we can all be more effective and happier at work… if we seriously propose it; Although I do not rule out that the poor quality of life in some areas of some companies is deliberate… I do not rule out that the defense of the status quo continues to prevail over other considerations, as the geocentric worldview prevailed until, after a struggle of 20 centuries, intelligence overcame to manipulation (provocative this, right?). Remember that Aristarchus of Samos (perhaps even someone before) already proposed the heliocentric model, and that Kepler was still careful, and Galileo paid for his bold lack of prudence.
Let us always be prudent, and therefore also when interpreting what is proposed to us to “conquer the truth of ourselves in our actions, and, in parallel, the full good for ourselves, with our conduct, that is, to live the truth about the good done in each act, and the realization of the good subordinated to the truth about our own being ”. I like abstractions - and I applaud, for example, those of Genrich Altshuller, decades ago, around innovative solutions - but I try to make sure that possible delusions are not being formulated, for very good intention with which they are supposedly formulated.
Regarding training, I would certainly bet on continuous training aimed at cultivating human capital, within a framework of professionalism that catalyzes the desired “commitment”: yes, another buzzword. But of all the buzzwords, the one I like the most is precisely the "innovation" one; an innovation that would go beyond mere technological renewal, the incorporation of best practices and the inexcusable improvement; an innovation in processes, products, services and more (see Kotelnikov's list), on which many voices of the 21st century seem to bet. I say this because innovation also has a lot to do with the so-called “managerial skills”, which, as I have defended, would correspond, perhaps and largely, to all professionals in the knowledge and innovation economy.
But, before finishing, I would like to insist - you already know - that not everything ends with having the knowledge, faculties, abilities, wills, values, etc., but rather that we have to resolve the hiatus that José Antonio tells us about. Marina in Failed Intelligence. I would highlight, to ensure our results, the need to reduce or eliminate the cult of the ego, the presumption of infallibility, greed, complacency, clinging to errors, narcissism, disconnection from realities… I am afraid I have abused your attention, but I thank you for getting this far.
