For the benefit of all, and also of the budgets of the Human Resources areas of large companies, and of the prosperity of consulting firms and business schools, management has continuously generated great mantras, among which it is worth highlighting leadership, to the height of quality or management by objectives, and in natural couple with change. There always seems to be a budget for the training of young managers, and leadership - in addition to being a necessity - came to be a flexible, differentiating, elitist and, in short, especially attractive concept. Today the advance of the changes moves us to update their meaning, but we must also promote the other leadership: the leadership of ourselves.
The Human Resources professionals of some large companies speak of a kind of reinforcement of leadership in their organizations, perhaps admitting that the training actions deployed so far have not yielded the expected results; or implying that today we must interpret leadership in another way. We already know, on the other hand, the mistakes made in the name of talent: the number of spoiled young people who have starred in disasters in not a few large companies.
Without a doubt, we must review the leadership; In fact, and as an example, days ago I read statements from a well-known Spanish e-learning provider, José Ignacio Díez (“élogos”), pointing out that his star product in 2006 would be “management by habits”, as a leadership model.
Not knowing yet, by the way, what the address by habits (DpH) consisted of, I searched the Internet and found: “The challenges of DpH are twofold:
define what habits are best for people, and show the paths to achieve them. In this strict sense, the work consists of the person conquering the truth of himself in his actions, and, in parallel, the full good for himself, with his conduct: living the truth about the good done in each act, and the realization of the good subordinated to the truth about his own being ”. It will sound like irony, but, perhaps because I have not started, understand it, I did not understand it: that is the truth; however, I found it revealing that the word truth appeared three times, because perhaps something of truth had been missing until now…
But I have also found these words from Isidro Fainé, general director of La Caixa: “From a cold Direction by Instructions we went to an aseptic Direction by Objectives. Now, Management by Values (introduced in our country by Professors Dolan and García), coming from Indian thought; and Management by Habits (fruit of the thought of Professor Fernández Aguado), based on Greek culture, are manifested as quality instruments to continue working for the benefit of each member of the organizations in which we work. It is not a question of substituting the Management for Objectives, as of proposing these in the form of Challenges, and completing the government by pointing out the appropriate ways for each worker to assume these new competencies, which allow them to complete Pindar's proposal: It becomes what they you must be".
In short, different systems are appearing (there is also talk in our country of "direction by missions") so that leaders lead their followers, in the best way, to shared goals; But, in these pages, I simultaneously try to invite everyone to self-leadership: to play a greater role in their own professional career, reducing our emotional dependence on others. New followers have to mobilize after shared goals, and perhaps not so much after leaders they have not chosen.
Perhaps companies and consultants should focus more on the followers, and less on those elected as leaders.
Reflections on leadership
I remember that when talking about the profile of the leader, one thought, in the 90s, of the chief executive of his organization; But we also interpreted then that it was a new way of exercising leadership, more in line with the changes under way in society and in companies, and without impairing the management function. As is well known, this way of managing workers was already postulated in the first half of the 20th century, although there was more talk of leadership in the early 1990s, when large companies distinguished between young people with potential or talent, and young people who did not. specially gifted for leadership, and grooming their next generation of leaders.
Undoubtedly, this leadership was a necessary postulate, more perhaps based on McGregor's Theory Y and aligned contributions, such as those of his disciple Bennis in the 80s, or the previous and memorable one by James MacGregor Burns, who already pointed out the moral basis of leadership.
Today -2006- leadership continues to admit different meanings in the company, and we also know that the orchestrated seminars do not seem, with few exceptions, to have contributed so much to the progress of hierarchical relationships as the mere change of society.
It is not that a short workshop can do miracles, nor can the well-known online pills do them, but something else could surely have been achieved…, if it had been better known what one wanted to achieve. If the reader agrees, we would say that the new manager has to meet two main goals: efficiency and quality of life in his environment of influence. (I don't always find acquiescence in saying this).
As quality of life also lends itself to various interpretations, I will say that I mean avoiding useless efforts and negative emotions, and promoting positive ones without compromising effectiveness: we can all be more effective and happier, and the leader should contribute to this in a decisive way. Very at the end of the 90s, in a conference organized by the Association for the Progress of Management (APD), I observed that our national experts began to relate leadership with emotional intelligence: it seemed to me an advance because, on the one hand, we filled of content the concept of leadership, and on the other hand, we were entering the enterprise of emotional intelligence, which until then seemed something semi-clandestine, as emotions had been.
I do not know if the workers of large companies that at that time were in the process of a jibaric reduction felt very led, although officially there was also talk of cultural change. Personally, I could not help turning the concept of leader (read "fold"), and thinking about the shepherd and the sheep: I also lived one of those programs orchestrated with liturgy and doctrine (noise and nuts), that the first Executives launched perhaps after reading John S. Rydz or other authors. I remember that there were not a few upper-middle managers who repeated: "The president has said…", "As the president says…", "This is what our president wants." One viewed these top managers as followers rather than leaders, and, with some irreverent irony,A dear colleague and I argued that "the leader is a man who says things": that was our definition. More seriously, let's admit that, in the company, leadership has been interpreted as:
- Position at the head of the company, a department, etc. Task of the chief executive, typically in a process of change System, method or style of directing people Role of managers, complementary to that of management Family of skills Interpersonal skills of the best managers Specific ability to guide and energize others towards common goals Virtual position of the leader, recognized by his followers Enthusiastic, contagious and inclusive attitude after a collective achievement.
Almost all of this certainly points to an official distance between the leaders and those led or followers, but the condition of follower cannot be imposed but must be earned.
In fact, we would say that one is not a leader if there are no followers who see it that way, nor is one creative if others do not believe it.
When the buzzword began to sound in companies, there was certainly a lot written about leadership, even if we had hardly read Kotter, or we had simply become familiar with the situationalism of Hersey and Blanchard.
Without going back to Mary Parker Follett, I found a few years ago on the Internet a document from the US Armed Forces, dated in Washington on September 15, 1953 (by then perhaps the reader would not have been born, but Hillary had already returned from Everest, and in Spain Franco inaugurated many swamps and imposed the mortarboard on new cardinals); said that times were changing in companies, and Clarence Francis, chairman of General Foods, was credited with the following phrase: “40 years ago - he said then - the idea prevailed that what was good for business was good for companies. people, but what prevails now - remember that the document was from 1953 - is the idea that what is good for people is good for business ”. Francis, who later served as 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 ”. A few years later, McGregor would formulate his well-known theories.
Well that's it: leaders have to earn the emotional adherence of their followers. Unfortunately, today, more than 50 years after those words, we know that not a few top executives of large companies, recognized as great leaders and without generalizing, have been giving conferences on leadership and good corporate governance, when perhaps with more They could give them a foundation on greed and corruption: Peter Drucker himself denounced the greed of the executives of our time, especially those who were getting rich without measure while their companies were impoverished, and of those who did it while laying off thousands of workers. I have read this in one of your last books, but the famous Fortune magazine has also sometimes dealt with the abuse of leaders.
Perhaps one day neuroscience will provide us with tools to know who one can trust and who not -if we do not already have them-, but we know well that some apparent relationships of leaders and followers hide complicities to the detriment of third parties, and that not a few followers They are out of interest, and not so much out of intimate conviction. We talk a lot about ethics and social responsibility, but there also seem to be businesses that exploit the spaces that, apart from ethics, the law leaves. Samaranch warned him in relation to doping in sport: the rules are behind. Something like that happens with corruption and the law. It usually takes not a short time until a new immoral practice, with damage to third parties, is prosecuted by law in the business world.
Ultimately and once this kind of moral digression is over - remember: MacGregor Burns already linked leadership with moral values in the 70s - emotional leadership is not imposed, but is a free choice of the followers, when they are in need of a leader. But do we really need a leader? Maybe yes, but not, of course, any leader, not to the detriment of our own prominence in our professional existence. We must today, workers and managers, endow ourselves with a vital purpose and star in our trajectory after the shared goals in the company.
Self-leadership
We are not only talking about autonomy and individual leadership on the part of managers and knowledge workers, but also about feeling work life as their own, as a source of fulfillment and satisfaction, after an encouraging goal (remember that sometimes, in companies, we make mistakes goals).
Space arises here for the outcrop, cultivation and development of self-mastery -personal mastery- that Peter Senge spoke of, parallel to the empowerment postulated in companies and accompanied by a certain transcendence. It springs from oneself, but the organization can catalyze or repress it: I mean a self-control that includes a purpose, a negentropizing vital objective, consistent or harmonious with the activity of the organization to which we join, and that includes values, beliefs and models that fit the culture of the company. We cannot be efficient and happy enough if we do not feel integrated into our environment.
There are many authors who develop the idea of the mobilizing life purpose, but one has read more Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Martin Seligman and Robert K. Cooper, which explains the concern about the quality of life at work.
It is true: we are basically talking about the personal domain of Robert Fritz, Peter Senge and other experts, which this writer would like, without blurring it, to dress up with enriching features from other authors.
This self-leadership is not trivial, because one thing is to let oneself be carried away in life by the surrounding currents until, at the end, one realizes that that was not where he wanted to go, and another thing, quite different, is to try to continue a course towards the chosen port, when we have chosen well.
In the second case, one is more convinced of having lived his own life, and in the first it seems that the leading role has belonged to others. I would bet on a suitably selected port of destination and a suitable path, procuring the favor of the wind, that is, of the environment; In other words, that our choice contributes to the common good and provides well-being for those close to us, in the office and at home.
It seems, in this purpose and as Fritz pointed out, that the important thing is not whether or not what we set out to achieve is achieved, but that, in the meantime, we have directed our efforts well, without waste, and perhaps we have made interesting discoveries in the process. road.
"Purpose is the inner compass that guides our life and our work," says Cooper.
Thus, the supposed leadership of the boss could remain almost a mere influence derived from moral authority (not formal), counting on the workers being prepared to lead and self-follow. And counting on the pursued objective being aligned with that of the company, and all share wishes.
So for subordinates it would be a question - if the reader supports the revolutionary tone - of assuming the leading role and importance that corresponds to them, and being more complete human beings within the company. More than followers of the chosen ones, mortals should be supportive companions behind a shared goal, each occupying the assigned position, without prejudice to personal and professional dignity. In the knowledge and innovation economy, there should no longer be room for blind submission, and not even for always agreeing with the boss; we are more effective in helping to widen the angle of observation of reality.
Let's get into the anatomy of self-leadership: I am accompanying you with a possible deployment. You will see here elements of the intrapersonal intelligence of Gardner, Goleman, Cooper, and other experts, but also of Senge's positive psychology and personal mastery.
They should not worry so much about overlaps as possible shortcomings, but they will not see strengths or interpersonal skills because we are only displaying the leadership of ourselves:
- Adaptation to changes Eagerness for improvement and achievement Open-mindedness and flexibility Attention to quality of life Authenticity and mindfulness Measured self-confidence Self-awareness and self-criticism Self-control and temperance Self-discipline, courage and integrity Commitment and responsibility Cultivation of intuition. Autotelic dedication to work. Permanent development. Realistic energy and optimism. Attention and time management. Initiative and proactivity. Professional goal in accordance with the organization. Psychic Negentropy. Orientation to the collective good. Reflective thinking. Systemic perspective. Resistance to adversity.
I opted for alphabetical order, because the priorities correspond to each one. They can add more items without restrictions, and they can also delete some from the list; But I believe that we must all be owners and protagonists of our lives, outside and inside work: that we must be more complete human beings and professionals. No one can develop self-leadership for us; They can make it easy and difficult for us, but it is our business: it is our life.
I don't know if self-leadership is genetic or extragenetic, although it can be seen from childhood; I do believe, however, that it is never too late to develop or cultivate it properly. Be the owner of your life, and manage it well: flee, if you can, from greedy leaders, narcissists, majestics, visionaries, megalomaniacs.
There are, of course, good leaders (perhaps on Greenleaf's model): try to be one of them, or be a good follower, but remember to lead yourself to a well-chosen goal.
