For years, in the business world the word "prudence" seems to sound almost as much as in the religious world, and perhaps we are no longer so sure of the meaning of the signifier; something like this happens with the most used expressions, such as talent, leadership, innovation, quality, strategy or human capital. We can see prudence as the art of living (according to Cicero), or of living together, or of avoiding problems and conflicts or even, with a certain Gracian vision, of succeeding; but today, in our daily lives, we usually associate this virtue with reflection, good judgment, restraint, caution and the avoidance of risks and excesses. The manager will have to be prudent, although without giving up the audacity.
Already in the previous decade, the Gracian display of prudence seemed to constitute a very appreciated reference in the training of managers. Baltasar Gracián left us more things, but those 300 pieces of advice from the fascinating "Manual Oracle and the Art of Prudence" can still be seen today as a good and brief treatise, one would say about social intelligence for success. Outside the catechism, we can truly interpret prudence with a certain breadth, and it is worth wondering about its best expression in a leader, not from the seventeenth century but from our time; It is even worth wondering if effectiveness does not require today also, at times, a dose of recklessness.
I read days ago a curious column by Javier Fernández Aguado, a prestigious business consultant and an excellent speaker. I found it on the Internet, on a page for online training professionals and the world of human resources. The column was entitled "Zapatero is worth 100", and in it the author focused on the current president of the government of Spain, to end up wondering if the time has not come to find, "urgently", a president "prudent, or at least do not lie so repeatedly as ridiculous. " It caught my attention because of the forcefulness of the disqualification and because the emphasis was placed on the alleged imprudence of our leader, apparently more serious than his alleged falsehood.
I think there will also be those who attribute to Zapatero a lack of audacity and excess of prudence, but the author pointed out a deficit and came to emphasize that a ruler must be prudent. Of course, throughout history, many thinkers have defended prudence as a cardinal virtue, among other values that are also appreciable in those who administer power. That same day, by the way, a Metroscopia survey was published in which Rajoy, the Spanish alternative, appeared less valued than Zapatero; So, respecting all opinions on the matter (favorable and unfavorable), I would invite you to reflect on the prudence of the ruler… but, above all, that of the ruler in the company.
Years ago I consulted the well-known work of Baltasar Gracián on prudence and it seemed to me of high value for the exercise of directing. Perhaps, as a reference for management, more valuable than The Prince, by Machiavelli and The Art of War, by Sun Tzu. But, without going back centuries, Fernández Aguado himself is the creator of a management model that, according to the book (“Direction by Habits, a transformation model”) that I read a few years ago, seems to postulate prudence, justice, strength and temperance, as cardinal habits of the manager. So I was already relating this expert to the defense of prudence - which he repeatedly alludes to in his texts - but especially within the business world.
Defining prudence
I remember that I read that of the cardinal virtues with a certain reserve, but I will not disperse with the other three: I believe that it has to be explained well what the prudence consists of that, according to so many thinkers, we have to expect from the leaders of organizations.
According to the book I was referring to (page 48), Fernández seemed to include in his display of this virtue the following main manifestations in daily performance: empathic listening, good judgment, search for the truth, permanent development, commitment, teamwork, exemplary, clear vision, creativity and optimism in the face of obstacles, and also receptivity to the ideas of others.
I wish to reflect on the best expression of prudence in the profile of managers, and in this regard Fernández's deployment pointed to manifestations from which it is not possible to distance himself: to me (although optimism causes me some qualms) they seem very desirable traits in the manager, without losing sight of the fact that, more than prudent, the manager must surely be effective in his assigned functions.
What I don't know is whether, in general, we usually associate prudence with all these traits pointed out by our expert (with optimism, with creativity, with teamwork…). In fact, that book on Management by Habits explained that, in reality, rather than talking about “prudence”, it was convenient to do it in the “perspective” company; then the two terms seemed to be used synonymously ("prudence or perspective…"). Likewise, for the virtue of justice, equity was chosen as the most appropriate term, and for temperance, that of balance.
My impression is that we can relate prudence, of course, with good judgment, with clarity of vision, with receptivity to opinions and initiatives of others, with the search for truth and knowledge…, and equally - to extend a little more the list- with the measured expression, the caution before the powerful, the reflection in the decision making, the respect for the others, the political correctness, the emotional self-control, the common sense, the humility or modesty, the relationships well selected, the prevention or neutralization of risks and conflicts, the avoidance of complacency, secrecy or reserve in certain matters, the avoidance of ridicule, self-knowledge, knowing how to keep quiet and wait…
The prudent manager would apply to all of this (and anything else that occurs to the reader), and I do not think that we disagree on this to a significant degree. If anything, I would comment that there are some pieces of advice from Machiavelli and Gracián that we should dwell on - I don't know if with a frown - especially if we observe from the side of the governed or directed. The Florentine philosopher came to say that “the ruler will have to ensure that his subordinates cannot fulfill all their commitments, so that no one dares to formulate criticisms or demands; that he will also take care that no one deceives him, and also that no one tells him the truth without being asked, because that would be a breach of trust and the ruler has to be feared… ”.
From Gracián, among the three hundred wise advice that he left us in the name of prudence -including, by the way, that of making an interested administration of the truth-, we can also find that of “Take advantage of the needs of others in your favor; make sure they depend on you and your promises. " Or that of "Always look for someone to hold responsible for your faults." The Aragonese Jesuit advocated, as a great ability of the ruler, that he seek a follower who, with the agreed counterpart, would accept the role of scapegoat for his possible mistakes. I would say that this advice is still followed today, sometimes with some peculiarities.
Perhaps we could, by the way, attribute recklessness to Zapatero because he does not deposit government errors in the ministers and assumes them himself, being the object of constant criticism by the opposition. Or perhaps because (according to Fernández Aguado's display) he is not clairvoyant, judicious, empathetic, faithful to the truth, optimistic in the face of obstacles…, or perhaps because he has not broken with Chávez… Fundamentals will certainly have the columnist, who recalled, for example, the recent change of government to say that "it has placed people without sufficient training in key positions." Zapatero can certainly be seen as reckless, either by default or by excess of caution. But let's go back to the business world, to analyze the border between prudence and recklessness.
Prudence in decisions
In another text of his on the Internet, Fernández Aguado, who constitutes a reference in Spanish thinking about business management, points to prudence as a cause “in some way” that the decisions are correct, and adds that “Every managerial error is imprudent, is a miscalculation. And that, not because of diminished technical preparation, but because of a lack of deliberation, or seeking advice, or empire ”. In my opinion, perhaps there may also be a lack of knowledge or preparation at times, at a time when the fields of knowledge are growing every day; in that case, the manager would have to go to the technical expert. But I would like to add some reflection on the endogenous and the exogenous.
We will agree that the individual's strengths and weaknesses lie within, and that they can lead to successes and mistakes; But I would add that perhaps the same decision could lead to success or failure, depending on factors and variables from the outside world, which cannot always be predicted or analyzed with full rigor, however prudent we may be. In other words, we cannot master all the variables even if we manage to identify them, and then we have to take risks. In fact, intuition is often used, and many entrepreneurs (for example, Bill Gates or Rosalía Mera) admit and advise it (although it must be said that all that glitters as such is not intuition, and this reflection would give for another article or other book).
I would say that by convention, we usually consider the decision that leads to success as good, and as bad, the one that leads to failure (even if there is no lack of a manager who always defends his decisions as good and blames, where appropriate, the failure on the market…); but, accepting the above and things are sometimes very complex, I would not dare to rigidly link the good decision with prudence, and the bad one with recklessness, except for another convention. The truth is that, once the results are known, if they are good let us congratulate ourselves, and, if they are bad, what follows is not so much to sanction the presence or lack of prudence, but, in addition to facing the new situation, to find out what detail was escaped and if could have been considered.
Someone said that "there are times when audacity is prudence", and the strength of the phrase is due to the fact that they are normally considered contrary terms, or counterbalance. Whether you want to see yourself as prudent or reckless, we all agree that audacity is necessary in the governance of the company, and that is what I will follow. In fact, for better or for worse, and especially in certain countries, it is not so frowned upon for an employer or manager to fail, and I think they are not considered reckless.
On the edge of recklessness
Let us exclude recklessness, but there is a determining element that leads us to consider certain supposed imprudences as precise, that is, to ignore some of the usual rules of prudence; I am referring to the existence of competition, to the need to prevail over competitors and win the trust of customers every day. Indeed, if we cannot anticipate with innovative solutions, we have to find other formulas to neutralize and outperform competing companies, and also to react correctly and promptly, even boldly, when we are overwhelmed. We want to survive, and in this endeavor there would surely be room outside prudence (or the meaning we usually give it).
We should not think only of the companies that offer the best value for money to satisfy the expectations and needs of our customers, or that face these with new products or services, of interest and impact; We must also see as competition everything that, as a consequence of changes in society, reduces or eliminates those needs or expectations, and perhaps replaces them with others.
For example, the sewing machines of our grandmothers or mothers disappeared, and there is also talk of "sudden death" in some industries. I mean that companies have been under constant threat, so to speak, from different fronts.
For the company to stay alive, perhaps it is sometimes necessary to make quick and risky decisions (which could be seen at that moment as bold or reckless), sacrifice part of the truth (which I do not know if it would be graceful prudence or moral imprudence), put realism over optimism (this seems prudent to me, although optimism is usually preached), quantity over quality (it could be prudent or unwise depending on the case, and depending on whether we think about the short term or in the length), the least bad ahead of the worst (when the good and prudent is impractical)…
Executives - Fernández Aguado knows this and explains it better than I do - often have to aim for audacity and risk, as well as ambition (well understood), and we must also see these traits as values or virtues; but they also have to point, perhaps and even if it does not seem desirable, to a certain excess, questionable relationships or the immodest display of achievements (real or not), in their desire to attract the attention of potential clients. Some companies may end up losing the connection between what they are and what they want to appear, and this would be objectionable, as is corruption, greedy or not; but it does seem necessary to attract the attention of customers, even if it is avoiding prudence.
About the truth and the lie
There will be those who associate prudence with the truth (although Gracián already suggested that we should not be very generous with it), and there will therefore be those who seem imprudent to use the lie; this will be the case in general, but it will surely depend on each case. One suspects that lying constitutes, in many cases, a tool, perhaps everyday, of management in companies (and even in politics).
I have thought about it for several decades, and even, politically incorrect, I, reckless myself, managed to tell my bosses. I would add, by the way, that great management experts (I listened to Tom Peters) openly state that most managers use lies if they need to.
However, if the lie is to say the opposite of what is thought, and to do so with the intention of deceiving, perhaps everything, everything, which is qualified as such is not a lie. It would be necessary to be sure of what the alleged liar thinks, and to know his intentions or ultimate ends. Gracián advised to conceal the true aims…; He did not advise lying, but he did advise cautiously managing the truth.
Let us remember, by the way and if the reader agrees, some advice about the great Aragonese thinker:
- Your truth, tell the least, and to the most, say what they want to hear.
- Tell only part of the truth.
- Learn when and how to tell the truth.
- When a truth causes problems, it is best to keep quiet.
- Avoid transmitting bitter truths to your superiors.
But do we condemn, or do we not condemn, lying in professional performance? Even when there is a desire to deceive, it would be necessary to analyze the ultimate intention, the consequences of telling the truth, if the damages and risks of lying are greater or less than those of the truth… Note that Fernández reproached Zapatero for “lying as repeated as ridiculous ”. If the president had lied, it seems that the mistake would have been, above all, to do so "repeatedly and ridiculously."
I do not know if the reader will dislike the lie as much as I do, but everything is very complex and we often lack data when condemning it in specific cases. One does not rule out that one can lie to a good end, although one fears that whoever lies a little, ends up lying out of habit and even unnecessarily. Yes, all this is more complex, and besides, I am not trying to be right, but to lead to reflection.
Final message
Obviously the formulation of my reflections could be prolonged, but I have already abused the reader's attention. I believe that the manager, in each circumstance, knows or has to know what virtue, value or habit to give priority to, and specifically when it comes to prudence; but I have been moved by some specific intention behind these paragraphs. On the one hand, remembering how interesting it can be to consult the work of Baltasar Gracián and follow his advice, always in an ideal way applied to each case.
I think that unless you're already very socially intelligent, your advice remarkably helps us sharpen our relational wit behind the best results.
On the other hand, I wanted to emphasize that the debate on truth and lies would perhaps be more useful than the debate on prudence and recklessness. For my part (that is, as far as I can think of), I think I have practically exhausted the latter, but there would certainly be much more to say about the use of truth and lies in business management. One, far from great powers, has been lucky enough to hardly have to lie; but my truths could often be wrong, or very wrong, because without a doubt each one perceives the realities in their own way. Here I leave it -before getting into the mental models and the brain tricks us-, trusting that we lie as little as possible and in no case out of habit.
