Knowledge workers, graduates with a certain professional experience, should be asked what would be the boss profile that would make them work more at ease, with the best performance.
I suppose it has been done, and even repeatedly, but what I think I'm sure of is that whatever the resulting ideal profile, we would label it "leader."
In fact, we are putting the leader label on very different models… and I think we are doing it regardless of whether the followers actually feel like followers. How should leadership evolve to better adapt to the knowledge economy?
To begin with, it all depends on what we understand by leader and by follower, and whether a typically transactional relationship can be described as such.
Already at the beginning of the 90s, it seemed to me that there was some confusion around the concept of leader, and that perhaps, in each organization, the concept was close to the profile of the chief executive, even though he presented a hieratic, majestic aspect; In fact, I seem to remember that, in the large company where I worked, half a dozen executives were selected (I never knew by what criteria) to define the traits of the leader and design, accordingly, a leadership development program in young managers.
It could almost be said that everyone sees leadership in their own way. We are not only facing one of the postulates of management to which we have added more adjectives (transformational, transactional, situational, relational, resonant, democratic, emotional, ethical, responsible, service, participative, inspiring, empowering, charismatic, visionary, fusion…), and of which we do more diverse readings, but some experts have suggested a certain synonymy with elements such as emotional intelligence, and even coaching. In addition, new leader-follower models continually appear, as if the previous ones did not generate the desired results.
I fear that coaching is a matter for coaches, and leadership, for leaders, and that it is not the same; and I believe on the other hand that emotional intelligence is desirable in everyone, managers and workers. Once this contradictory attitude has already been adopted, I would also say that the new knowledge workers, experts, responsible and accustomed to pursuing objectives, are prepared to follow goals - and achieve them - but perhaps not so much to follow other people with whom they may even disagree, where appropriate, in technical matters. The need for middle managers (in an adequate proportion) cannot be questioned, but perhaps the label of leader we insist on so much.
I would like to emphasize that it is no longer always the boss who knows the most, and that knowledge is a rising value in the emerging economy; and invite us to reconsider some of the leader-follower models, bearing in mind the profile of the new knowledge worker, of which Peter Drucker spoke so much. But let's not deviate, and let's go to what the ideal boss would be like.
Reflections on leadership in the company
Who would be the ideal manager, described by skilled and responsible workers? What would be the best ratio, according to the workers? What do they need to make their best contribution to the organization?
With obvious risk of error, let me imagine; I believe that there are several elements that, from the perspective of the worker, contribute to the desired synergy. Specifically, if we did a metaplan, one of those exercises of grouping ideas by affinity, perhaps we would see the worker of medium and large companies demanding that his boss:
- Clarify goals and rules of the game Respect their knowledge and experience Observe integrity Be intelligent and insightful Have the capacity for technical dialogue Give you power and initiative Inform you Facilitate ongoing development Allow you to achieve professional fulfillment Provide them with the necessary resources Value a job well done Communicate horizontally Practice praise and congratulations Be sincere and generous Set an example Value yourself as a company asset Earn their trust and show them yours.Don't discourage him.Give him valuable feedback.Acknowledge extraordinary efforts.Externalize emotions.Have a good mood.Defend your legitimate interests…
Naturally, this exercise should be done formally in each organization, and as I was saying, this is a guess list.
On the one hand, the workers themselves might disagree (with me and each other) on some of the improvised features, and on the other, the workers' point of view is not the only one of several to consider; but let's admit that this reference - that of the supposed followers - is important to define the leader. It could also be thought that, in reality, leadership is simply a position, a occupied position; but the fact is that many seminars have been orchestrated to develop the leadership of middle managers, so it should not be about a position but about a personal profile… Well, it can be anything we want:
- Position at the head of the company, a department, etc. Task of the chief executive, typically in a process of change System or method of directing people Role of managers, complementary to that of management Family of 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…
I believe that the leadership that we refer to in these pages would reflect the manager's best relationship with his collaborators, in search of individual and collective effectiveness, and the professional development and satisfaction of all. But what does collective effectiveness mean? It is, we must suppose, to achieve collective objectives together. It is not a question, in the company and if the truism is accepted, of obtaining a diploma of a good leader or a good follower, but of being effective, of achieving together, with the contribution of all, the objectives (of results and development) shared, and to do so with a certain quality of life at work. If leadership didn't serve business effectiveness and driving positive emotions, what else?
When thinking about effectiveness and having shared goals, Management by Objectives (DpO) always seemed ideal as a procedural support for the management function. It should be remembered that DpO, an idea spread by Peter Drucker fifty years ago, later constituted a good deal both for the management literature and for the consulting firms that offered courses for managers. Seminars on the DpO system of the past decades can surely number in the millions, and those on leadership follow the same path. It does not seem that DpO has always been properly implemented, but the fact is that, properly applied the system, it represented an advance or contribution towards individual and collective effectiveness.
However, since the pursuit of goals or objectives is evident in managers, it seems debatable if we think of workers. From workers with sufficient autonomy, it might be possible to ask for results (achievement of objectives); But perhaps not so much those who work by tasks, following instructions from their bosses: these workers should be asked to perform their work according to the specifications received, and perhaps little else. The reality is certainly more complex, and each case is almost unique; but we will agree that responsibility is proportional to autonomy in decision-making.
I will specify the message. I wanted, with regard to leadership, to distinguish the case where workers have a certain autonomy and pursue objectives, from the other case where they practically limit themselves to doing their job, following formulated specifications or periodic instructions, more or less detailed, from the boss. But it is that - I do not know if I dare to say it - in none of the cases does the need to speak of "leadership" in the 21st century fit well: I already warned that today I am against it, as if assuming a devil's advocacy…
Should so-called followers follow a boss-leader who entrusts them with tasks, or should they take responsibility and achieve the results they commit to? What makes followers follow the boss, their leader profile, or end-of-month salary?
My formulation will seem reductionist, if you think about inspiring, energizing, transforming, resonating…; But what do skilled workers, lifelong learning and innovation professionals think of all this? Do they feel (or should they feel) professionals, or perhaps followers? Yes followers, welcome to the leadership; if professionals, let's promote a more professional relationship; not cooler, but more professional.
I propose to the reader the need to progressively reduce the leader-follower relationship (if it had ever existed) in order to simultaneously encourage better understood professionalism; to encourage, of course, the desirable leadership of the workers; to promote the self-leadership of all, once the initial junior stage has been overcome.
In each case, it would be necessary to see if the ideal relationship is that of leader-follower, that of manager-collaborator, that of client-provider, that of tutor-ward, that of boss-subordinate, that of expert-assistant, that of senior -junior, that of proactive-reactive, that of colleague-colleague, or that of professional-professional.
When reflecting here on leadership, I always refer to the relationship between middle managers and workers, for whom -one and others- I would defend a greater dose of personal control after shared goals; It seems to me that this demands the neosecular panorama of the economy of knowledge and innovation.
Without questioning the -valuable- role of those leadership models in the cultural change of the previous decade, I believe that emerging realities require a more professional relationship between managers and workers, in line with the evolution of profiles in knowledge companies.
I lived, although only as a witness, the time when the boss was called to you, the latter putting great effort into maintaining an abysmal distance from his subordinates; then I lived, already as a sufferer, the time when, even under the command of the boss, the principle of authority was imposed on anyone else; later, in the 90s, I lived a closer, more rational relationship, with greater personal and professional respect for the collaborator. The evolution must have been more complex and readers will have their own experiences, but the doctrine of leadership has undoubtedly contributed to the cultural change in relations between managers and workers.
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 was in the second half of the century when the idea of leadership was developed more deeply, with contributions such as Allen, Burns, Greenleaf, Fiedler, Hersey, De Pree, Bennis, Kotter, Kouzes, Posner, Rost and other gurus, not counting the examples of important business leaders like Welch, Grove, Gates, Gerstner and others. In the '80s and' 90s, precise changes had to be driven well, and leadership certainly fit conceptually.
His preaching in seminars, books and conferences seems to have contributed, yes, to different achievements. For example:
- to reduce exaggerated distances between managers and workers; to emphasize the goals pursued; to carry out technical and cultural changes; to reveal some necessary personal skills; to get emotions out of hiding; to awaken the imagination and initiative of employees. workers…
To the extent that all this, and something else, has already been achieved in sufficient measure, what to do with the concept of leadership in middle managers? Perhaps it has not yet been achieved to a sufficient extent and it is necessary to persevere, but the truth is that some large companies already seem aware of the need to "revitalize" leadership, perhaps to tackle new tasks. In fact, experts and consultants continually offer new models. These models, among other possibilities, could point to the professionalization of relationships within the framework of knowledge, but I believe that they tend to insist on the elitization of managers and the safeguarding of a certain status quo. I will give you an example that I have already referred to at some point.
An example of a new leadership model
I read months ago that a Spanish consulting firm, Élogos, offered, as a star product for 2006, a new leadership model: Management by Habits (DpH); surely, this consultancy is sensitive to the expectations and needs of its clients, and aware that perhaps until now leadership development efforts have not always been very effective. As I was caught in reflections on leadership, I decided to look for information on the Internet, and I came to a study by Deloitte & Touche prepared by Miguel Ángel Alcalá, general director of the International Association for Management Studies: “The challenges of DpH are two: 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 herself in her actions, and,.in parallel, the full good for herself, with her behavior: living the truth about the good done in each act, and the realization of the good subordinated to the truth about her own being ”. I decided to keep looking.
From Javier Fernández Aguado, one of our recognized experts and father of this new doctrine, I could read: “The objectives of the company can be achieved by threat or by habits. It is dangerous to demand excessively: in the short term it is usually very useful because the employees work more for a while, but when the boss has left, the workers disconnect. You have to know how to combine direction by threat with direction by habits, which consists of summoning the best wishes and interests of each person in the work they do. I was left with that the new leader should summon the best wishes and interests of each follower, and did not want to interpret as a generalization the disconnection when the boss leaves.
Also from Miguel Ángel Alcalá, I was able to read: “With the management by habits (DpH) a systemic (global) consideration of the work and the person who executes it is established.
The DpH, together with the fruits of work, which various Central European authors call objective work (the external fruits of work), tries to jointly perfect subjective work: what remains in man after having fulfilled his duty, what happens to him in his very self. An identical objective work can involve subjective works even divergent ”. And I kept looking.
From Isidro Fainé, general manager 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".
At the same time, I looked for information from the consultancy itself, Élogos, which offered the model: "The management tool to implement DpH is the managers' own behaviors that will serve as an example to achieve the habits of the collaborators." I also read: “DpH is the achievement of the translation of the company's values into daily actions, seeking to overcome the institutionalization that can be caused during the maturation process of a company and to maintain motivation at suitable levels, which will result from the capacity of people and organizations to reinvent themselves, not to mimic behaviors ”.
And also: “The manager must attend to all aspects of the person with integrity. The true leader conquers the will and emotions of the collaborators, does not manipulate them. Understand their wishes and their decisions. Work on intelligence, will and emotions ”.
I sent this article to the aforementioned consultancy waiting to receive more information about the model offered, but did not receive a response. The truth is that I cannot say if this new model, apparently of complex application, aims to professionalize relationships, improve Management by Objectives, develop the fullness of the human being, or prolong the business of consulting firms; but it is true that the information search process provoked additional reflections that are not relevant. I will simply say that perhaps I, despite my 55 years, am not sufficiently initiated to interpret certain formulations; the reader may be, even when he is younger.
It seems good that organizations continue to consider the definition of the best relationship between managers and workers, and perhaps not so much in the new economy as in their own case.
When you need to improve your habits, you may have to remember the recommendations of Covey and some national authors; when it is necessary to take care of the formulation of objectives and visions, it will also have to be documented; When values have to be renewed, more will have to be done than proclaiming the new ones… But we should not forget that it is, or should be, about raising the inexcusable collective effectiveness in each organization, including a sufficient dose of quality of life at work.
conclusion
I believe that organizations must ensure the suitability of each new leadership model, before deciding to implement it; but I suggest at the same time that more work is done on the self-leadership of all, managers and expert workers, after the shared goals. Perhaps I should point out the specific traits of self-leadership that I present for the reader's consideration, but it is also something that every organization should analyze. For this consultant, one's own leadership would be nourished, among other elements, by:
- Adaptation to changes Eagerness for improvement and achievement Open-mindedness and flexibility Attention to quality of life at work Authenticity and mindfulness Grounded self-confidence Self-awareness and self-criticism Self-control and temperance Self-discipline, courage and integrity Commitment and Responsibility Cultivation of intuition Permanent development Definition of suitable and challenging goals Energy and enthusiasm Management of attention, awareness and time Initiative and proactivity Orientation to the collective good Reflective thinking Systemic perspective Resistance to adversity.
But they will also have gotten my message that language should conform to realities, and I suggest that managers be called managers, and workers, workers. Perhaps terms such as leader, follower, collaborator, subordinate, human resource, etc. should be reviewed, taking into account the circumstances of each case. I must finish. If you have come this far (agreeing or disagreeing), I can only thank you for your attention; I just wanted to move you to reflect on the leadership of middle managers, especially in knowledge companies, and in the face of the knowledge economy and constant innovation.
