Many times we meet people who mark our lives, both personally and at work. Sometimes those people stay close and sometimes they just appear, leave us something of themselves and leave. Certainly some bosses are no exception to this situation. And when this happens, when we have a boss who leaves something behind and then leaves, we usually change our way of acting, we are affected in the way we treat people and in any situation we remember the impact that boss had on us. That, some authors acknowledge, is learning, a change in behavior.
We also sometimes think: "What would he (she) have done in this situation?" He becomes our role model, he becomes someone we admire, generally because it made us feel so good as subordinates that we want to repeat that feeling in our own subordinates, but what is really what generates that impact? Why are there people like this? What is the difference between one boss and another? Why aren't all bosses the same if in many cases they attended the same University? What really makes the difference? What is it that makes people think of them as "Big"?
The answers to many of these questions are almost always the same: "He is a born leader", "He has a wonderful gift of people", "He does know how to treat people!", "He has a wonderful charisma!", etc. And all this is true, undoubtedly they are people who make a difference, they are people who stand out, they are people who stand out and who in most cases cover with all the previous points and I would also add that they are people who put into practice ALL the theory about Human Behavior.
We are talking about people who have communication skills, who are leaders, who know how to motivate their people, who know how to work as a team, who have negotiation skills and do not evade conflict, they face it, people who make decisions and who have a great self-knowledge that results in high self-esteem; However, far beyond all theory, I consider that the difference is that they are big people, because they take care of the little things. I will try to expand on this point.
There are various theories about behavior, leadership and the skills that a person must develop to be "Great." We have theories, like that of Myers-Briggs, that start from four dichotomies and the combination that may exist of these tries to explain the personality of people, and therefore the differences between them. These dichotomies are: Extroversion vs. Introversion, Sensation (of senses) vs. Intuition; Thought vs. Sentiment and Judgment vs. Perception. The combination of these 4 dichotomies results in 16 different personality types.
Based on the previous theory, Keirsey says that people are a certain shape because of their temperament. Keirsey mentions that people are different from others and that nothing will change them. He points out that there is still no reason to change it, as the differences are probably good, not bad. It argues that people are different in several fundamental ways. People want different things; it has different motives, purposes, values, needs, objectives, impulses and urgencies.
Keirsey does not talk about personality, but about temperaments, and explains that these are based on how people collect information from the environment (which can be with the senses (S) or through intuition (N)) and how they process it (which can be or in a Rational way (T), through feelings (F), making judgments (J) or through perception (P)). The combination of the compilation and the process of the information produces 4 types of basic temperaments, which can be summarized as follows:
SJ or Guardians temperament
They are people loyal to the system, they are governed by duty, they are very reliable, they have resistance to change since they preserve traditions, they are precise and they are those who say: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Characters of this temperament: Harry Truman, Elizabeth II, Jimmy Stewart, Mother Teresa, Colin Powell, Elizabeth I, and George Washington.
SP or artists temperament
They consider themselves free-spirited, they are process oriented, they are good in crisis situations, they are impulsive, they have a high need for freedom and space, they are flexible. They enjoy the moment and are spontaneous. They apply the phrase: "General and abstract ideas are the source of the greatest errors of humanity." Characters of this temperament: Johnny Carson, Barbara Streisand, Clint Eastwood, Amelia Earhart, Elvis Presley, Elizabeth Tylor and Franklin Roosevelt.
NT or idealistic temperament
They are people who achieve their goals, they are independent people, intellectually curious, they are not conformists, they are people based on principles, and they are architects of change, they constantly ask themselves: "What would happen if…" Characters of this temperament: Anne Lindbergh, Ghandi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Carl Rogers and Molly Brown.
NF or rational temperament
They are people who have interpersonal skills and can be considered a seducer for their ability to convince. They are people who are supportive to others, they are friendly and have a vivid imagination. They are hypersensitive to conflict, they are in a constant search for themselves, they need motivation and recognition and they are people who want to "become". Characters of this temperament: Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Walt Disney, Bill Gates and Margaret Thatcher.
We could continue exposing different theories that try to explain the differences between people. And here the eternal question of is a leader born or made? Personally, I am inclined towards the second option, not without ruling out that in some cases there are temperamental characteristics (I agree on this point with Keirsey) that influence personality. I am inclined to think that a leader is made, thinking that a leader is one who has followers to begin with and that brings us to our first point, a leader, from my point of view is the one who generates such an impact on her
And the answer would have to be: "They are big people, because they take care of the little things." Undoubtedly his temperament, traits, experiences and education will influence his style, but I think the real difference lies in doing things differently, in not being "one more"; The difference is sometimes so small that the simple fact that it is different makes it noticeable and then it looks "Big".
Undoubtedly; I would say that leaders have skills that develop over time and that it is even possible to acquire them through training; but I think the great difference I am talking about is present in a world where every time dealing with people seems strange.
We live in an increasingly globalized business world that makes contact with someone else through email, or in the best of cases through the telephone (if not, we are faced with the terrible recorded responses that they make us anxiously waiting for a human on the other side), and this becomes more and more common.
In an effort to make the service to our clients more efficient, we make more and more use of “the advantages of technology”, dehumanizing our service and attention. This is serious, but in service companies, whose main objective is the customer, it seems that we forget that, for the service to exist, it is not possible to exclude it from the people who perform it. It is at this point that Human Resources take on an importance, sometimes forgotten by the restless life that we are living day by day.
I think that the difference of the "Great" lies in doing things differently, and this is: first, not believing that you are already great, and then managing your time, to have a balance between your personal life and your work life, but above all the greatest differentiation lies in making its people feel like people. It is here where the small details make the difference and despite all the skills that a person may have or have developed, a change begins to be generated.
Throughout my working life, I have been fortunate to meet bosses who have made this impact on me. Bosses who, in addition to having the aforementioned skills, have had in common the following characteristics that I consider “the little details that make the difference”:
- They have been people with the ability to take the time (which almost never has or does not want to give) to sit down with each of their subordinates and specify very clearly what is expected of them and thus avoid surprises since both The parties handle the same information and above all the employee KNOWS what is expected of him and what is the impact that his work will have within the company They are people who speak to everyone by name (never by nickname), they report to phone calls If they say "I'll see you after a while," they do it; They have time to answer questions from their people, they spend time teaching new things, they pay attention when they talk to them about something and then they ask “how is that going?”, they show interest in people, they reward and recognize a job well done in the moment,They also reprimand at the time when it is necessary In short, they are people of commitment and who act with coherence: They do what they say and keep their promises.
I think that every time we lose sight of the fact that we are working with people and that is precisely the point of greatest opportunity there is to develop the little skills that make us “be great”. With this I do not mean that you should not have the aforementioned skills of communication, leadership, teamwork, motivation, etc. However, if I believe that we have to start with this commitment and treat people to make a difference, because if we do the same as others, how can we stand out? Would we be different from what or who?
After all, I consider that the real challenge is to make that cultural change from ourselves; because if it is true that as bosses we will be the role model, then that is the true development of managerial skills….
