In large companies, mid-level managers maintain a more direct relationship with workers ("knowledge workers" in many cases) and their leadership role must be understood as supported by a good set of intrapersonal and interpersonal qualities, which often it is necessary to develop. Senior Management also uses these personal skills (quite to do with the so-called emotional intelligence), but their competency profile is obviously more complex than that of middle management. And let's say it now: the training actions orchestrated to develop leadership at intermediate levels have not been generating very satisfactory results. Without a doubt, seminars or workshops can be improved, but they will hardly be enough.The culture of the organization and the example of the Senior Management must serve as a solid reinforcement to the training actions that are programmed; and, of course, middle managers have to make a continuous effort of self-criticism and professional development. All people must do it; but in middle managers it is inexcusable due to the cardinal nature of their emerging role. Let's say that, in the age of knowledge, the boss is not the one who knows the most; but it does have the keys to organizational synergy.In the age of knowledge, the boss is not the one who knows the most; but it does have the keys to organizational synergy.In the age of knowledge, the boss is not the one who knows the most; but it does have the keys to organizational synergy.
A little history
As is well known, already in the first decades of the 20th century, Mary Parker Follett contributed to highlighting the human side of business management, perhaps pointing out the first ideas about leadership and about the assumption of greater responsibilities by workers; But it is in the second half of the century when the idea of leadership is developed more deeply, with contributions such as those of Allen, Burns, Greenleaf, Fiedler, Hersey, Drucker, De Pree, Bennis, Kotter, Kouzes, Posner, Rost and others. gurus, not to mention the examples of top business leaders like Welch, Grove, Gates, Gerstner and others. Recently, and in parallel to the concern for emotional intelligence, there is insistence on a leadership style based more on moral authority than on formal power,more sensitive to the weight of feelings in the work environment and greater recognition of the personal-professional dignity of employees: we could speak of personal leadership, largely unrelated to the degree of power that is administered: in fact, we will refer here specifically to the groups of middle managers. Regardless of other aspects of the managerial function, this type of personal influence on the performance of the collaborators seems the most consistent with the cultural changes brought about by the new times. This personal-emotional leadership seems to be fully in tune with the empowerment movement and makes its way into companies as does the importance of human capital or the concept of “organizational intelligence”. We cannot question the theories of situational and relational leadership,although perhaps we are more in tune with that of servant leadership, on which we will insist. In short, without pretending to be original, we return to the origin of the question: we need to follow someone, but they must inspire us adherence to their values, including moral or ethical ones. Otherwise, our tracking would not be intrinsic.
Interestingly, in a document of the Armed Forces dated in Washington on September 15, 1953 and referred to the evolution of the role of executives (it is available on the Internet), it was said that times were changing in companies and it was attributed to Clarence Francis, chairman of General Foods, the following phrase: “40 years ago - he said then - the idea prevailed that what was good for business was good for people, but what now prevails - remember that the document is from 1953 - it's the idea that what is good for people is good for business ”. Francis, who was later an adviser to President Eisenhower, has another phrase to remember: “You can buy people's time, their physical presence in a place, and even a certain number of muscle movements per hour.But you don't buy their enthusiasm, you don't buy their loyalty, you don't buy the devotion of their hearts: that must be earned ”.
Fifty years later, we still think that - although it cannot be bought - enthusiasm and all the emotional contribution it can, nevertheless, be achieved. A good leader does it. Today, companies need both the intellectual and emotional capital of their people, and that is why well-understood leadership is part of the management function. We are not going to insist, because it is well known and because it aims especially at Senior Management, in terms of strategic thinking, vision of the future, communication, credibility, distribution of power… But it does not hurt, by the way, to bring here the difference between power and authority, as established by Max Weber: power is the ability to force someone to do your will, while authority is the ability to get someone to voluntarily do what you want.There seems to be no doubt that a worker prefers a boss with authority and disapproves of gestures of power, just as he would disapprove of reprehensible behavior. Perhaps in everyday language we do not distinguish between power and authority (we consider them synonymous), but perhaps we should start to do so. A leadership exclusively supported by the exercise of power could have a good number of apparent followers, but it would not have much to do with the leadership and followership that are postulated in the intelligent organization of the 21st century.A leadership exclusively supported by the exercise of power could have a good number of apparent followers, but it would not have much to do with the leadership and followership that are postulated in the intelligent organization of the 21st century.A leadership exclusively supported by the exercise of power could have a good number of apparent followers, but it would not have much to do with the leadership and followership that are postulated in the intelligent organization of the 21st century.
Describing leadership
We had referred to servant leadership. From speed reading, it appears that James C. Hunter's book The Paradox is being celebrated among readers. The author develops with narrative skill the idea of “servant leadership” that Robert K. Greenleaf anticipated some 30 years ago as a kind of “religion” of business management. Also Dee W. Hock, founder of VISA, saw management as a service to subordinates and many other managers see it as well. Of course, the attention - the service - to the professional needs of the collaborators in an empowering environment constitutes, without a doubt and among others, a source of authority on which leadership is very solidly sustained. There is obviouslyMany other - very many - good books that contribute to enriching our horizon in the exercise of management and there are numerous authors who coincide in pointing out this kind of new business order: managers at the service of professional needs (there is no mention of “ desires ”but rather the“ needs ”) of committed and responsible workers. To achieve their assigned objectives, workers must have the active support of their managers, in whose profile the worker wishes to find -as Hunter maintains- patience, affability, humility, respect, generosity, indulgence, integrity, commitment… All of us, and of course managers, must be more complete human beings - body, mind and soul - and this includes both cognitive and emotional intelligence, as well as other personal values.Perhaps it is appropriate to insist on the importance of moral and ethical values, as we have already suggested paragraphs above.
Various well-known conceptions of leadership, such as those formulated by Bennis and Nanus in Leaders, Kotter in Leading Change, Kouzes and Posner in The Leadership Challenge, Rost in Leadership for the Twenty-first Century, Cooper and Sawaf in Executive EQ or Goleman in Working with Emotional Intelligence, help to underline the personal-emotional aspect to which we refer. We are talking about leaders (remember: the "human" side of management) in which there is no room for selfishness, arrogance, the inability to recognize mistakes, the pursuit of inordinate objectives, the resort to psychological punishment or the belief of being infallible.
We are talking about leaders who would continue to be leaders even if they were stripped of their formal power. We are talking about leaders with whom workers feel comfortable working; those who characterize self-knowledge, self-confidence, self-control, proactivity, flexibility, the desire for achievement, responsibility, reliability, integrity, generosity, compassion, the desire for continuous improvement, the understanding of others, interest in the development of their collaborators, political awareness (not to be confused with politicking), moral authority, service orientation…
Additionally, emotionally intelligent and ethically behaved leaders contribute to the intelligence, health, and even virtue of the organization. We would say that an intelligent organization distinguishes itself because: it is well aware of its strengths and weaknesses; acts effectively even in difficult circumstances; generates satisfaction in its people; he learns from his own journey; learn from the evolution of your market; take full advantage of available human capital; pursue shared goals; share knowledge; look for new opportunities; understands well changes in their functional environment; it has a flexible structure; enjoy good internal and external communication; distributes power so that decisions are made at the most suitable level; it is really responsive to customer expectations;he is really sensitive to the dignity of his persons; reduces the distance between "us" and "them"; pursues continuous improvement and innovation; presents a climate of trust and synergistic collaboration and, among other things, is committed to a good work-life balance. The intelligence (the proper functioning of the present and the assurance of the future) of the organization belongs to everyone, but the managers assume an unquestionably capital role.but managers assume an unquestionably capital role.but managers assume an unquestionably capital role.
Many managers are endowed with a good dose of cognitive and emotional intelligence, and their companies and collaborators benefit from this. But perhaps we have not stopped to think about the cost of the emotional incompetence of some others or, where appropriate, the cost of ethically debatable conduct, including favoritism or the relentless pursuit of dissent and questioning the status quo. Leadership seeks to obtain the best performance of employees, seeking and achieving their professional satisfaction at the same time; the leader must subordinate his individual interests to the collective ones and guide the desired future. Indeed, as a worker told us, doing the same job one can feel satisfied or not, depending, among other things, on the boss who touches him.The truth is that bosses could also say something similar about their collaborators. Emotional maturity and good work undoubtedly make things easier in daily work; on the contrary, emotional clumsiness and abuse and power struggles constitute, in their case, a permanent cause of conflicts, visible or underlying.
Development of the leadership profile
Our conclusion is that everything would go a little better in companies (and in life) if we improved our profiles. The question is how to achieve that always possible improvement in our emotional quotient and our ethics: everything is perfectible and we must be well aware of it. For this kind of acceleration of maturity, we aim for an initial awareness that can go through reading books, attending a suitable workshop, receptivity to multi-source feedback and even the follow-up of a suitable e-learning program, suitably orchestrated.
If necessary, with this we could realize the advantageousness of the skills and personal attributes to which we refer and the inconvenience of their lack in the current company. Then we could do an assessment of our starting point and an improvement plan. This -the improvement plan- seems to go through frequent reflection (reflection-action cycles) with the help of a good coach: it would certainly be easier if we had a good coach (tutor).
In-person training actions (indoor or outdoor) aimed at developing management skills, and specifically at developing leadership in middle managers, could be unsuccessful if they were not followed by a supervised process. Improving our personal profiles requires time and, although the leading role corresponds to the interested individual, a suitable tutor would play a decisive role as a guide or driver of progress. The mentor or coach we are looking for could be our own boss: this would be highly desirable, especially when the boss meets the required qualities and constitutes an exemplary reference. But, even without a coach, we can and must improve our profile: it is worth it.
