Redefining Leadership in the Company

Without a doubt, leadership is one of the business management postulates to which we have added more adjectives (transformational, transactional, situational, relational, emotional, ethical, responsible, service, participatory, inspirational, empowering, charismatic, visionary ...), and of which we do more diverse readings. Perhaps its meaning in the new economy should be questioned, taking into account the profile of the new followers: knowledge workers. Indeed, new leadership models are emerging, although perhaps we continue to think, to a large extent, of the workers of the industrial age.

The reader will have the opportunity here to disagree as much as he wishes, but this writer would like to defend, from the outset, an interpretation of the leadership that, without ruling out others that we will also identify, would require the sanction of those led: “Leader status granted by followers, which supposes a satisfactory relationship and shared commitments, and which mobilizes efforts and encourages wills and emotions". The

Index

1. Updating the concept of leader
2. My experience of approach to DpH
3. What do I propose?

When taking this relationship into the business framework, we have to think that managers-leaders would have to gain the cognitive and emotional adherence of their collaborators, following shared goals or objectives. Without this adhesion, we could speak in companies of managers, bosses, managers..., but perhaps not so much of leaders. And when speaking of gaining membership, I would not mean - nor will the reader understand - that workers Today they have to put themselves at the blind service of specific people, but, above all, of goals shared. However, it is perhaps not certain that the relationship between managers and workers in the knowledge economy is well reflected in the leader-follower model.

I believe, indeed, and although there are other ways of looking at it, that the new knowledge workers (university, or from vocational training or other ways) —It is said that a key figure in the new economy— they manifest themselves as largely self-led professionals (a new relational framework emerges between companies and workers), and they do not seem to follow in the companies both leaders (except for collusions or complicities), as well as goals or objectives that attract their interest, their attention and their psychic energy. But, after these first reflections, I want to remember that leadership has also been identifying with:

• 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 managing people.
• Directors' role, complementary to that of management.
• Family of interpersonal skills of the best managers.
• Specific ability to guide and energize others towards common goals.
• Enthusiastic, contagious and inclusive attitude after a collective achievement.

In reality, in these times, rather than talking about leaders, this writer would prefer to talk simply about new managers and new workers. But I am counting that the new economy is still underway or process, and that we will surely continue speaking of leaders, although we also do it from the emerging profile —which Peter Drucker drew us in detail— of the new knowledge workers:

• Visible degree of personal and professional development.
• Digital and informational skills.
• Autonomy in performance and lifelong learning.
• Creative ability and innovative attitude.
• Professional autotelia and adherence to quality.
• All in all, a valuable asset for the company.

Drucker also stressed that these workers, whose relationship with the company is evolving, are shown more loyal to their profession than to their organization… But I don't remember reading anything about his loyalty to great leaders, whose frequent greed, by the way, the acclaimed teacher denounced in one of his last books.

Naturally, when speaking of greed —or corruption, narcissism, ego worship, etc.— we cannot generalize, and furthermore we should distinguish between powerful top managers on the one hand, and managers or middle managers, with a renewed role and reduced power, on the other other. But, leaving aside the exposed abuses of some exemplary business leaders (it would be unfair to cite only Welch), and focusing on middle managers, it must be emphasized the transition from a traditional hierarchical authority in companies to one more based on knowledge, and from a directive function of command and supervision to another of support and service.

So far my modest point of view on the need to update the leadership concept, in the intention of provoking reflections and even dissensions, because everything is certainly more complex; but I will now share my experience of searching for electronic information on a recent attempt to redefine leadership in the company: management by habits. I wanted to reflect it as instructive: I think we can draw lessons of various kinds.

Peter Drucker recently passed away in November 2005, and wanting to see what was said now about management by objectives (50 years after the renowned father of modern management outlined this professional management system), I started to look on the Internet, where I also usually do serendipitous discoveries. I soon found objections to the system, and came across the so-called "Management by habits" (DpH), which appeared to be a necessary evolution of management by objectives (DpO) and direction by values ​​(DpV). Then I also saw that a well-known Spanish e-learning provider, José Ignacio Díez (CEO of the former Fycsa, now integrated into “élogos”), offered the DpH as a new leadership model, and also offered it as its flagship product for 2006.

It interested me because I had never particularly associated DpO with leadership, so DpH had to be something noticeably different: less related to management, and more related to leadership. Would the DpH come to correctly channel the management of people in companies, and perhaps to preach values ​​such as integrity or subordination to the community?

Already when the management by values ​​emerged, I was surprised that it wanted to be related to the Direction by objectives, and that some people saw it as a substitute for this: I speak of the 90's. For me, DpV was not a bad idea, and it also seemed necessary to cultivate certain values ​​in companies (beyond proclaiming them on posters), but it did not seem realistic to me to compare it with the doctrine of the DpO (which, if anything and in my opinion, had been adulterated in the application). I had, in my view, to continue working professionally to achieve important well-selected and formulated objectives, and it had to be done with competent (we were also talking about management by competencies) and acting, of course, within the cultural framework of the organization (beliefs, values, styles…).

In my search for information on address by habits (DpH), I came across a study by Deloitte & Touche prepared by Miguel Ángel Alcalá, general director of the International Association for Studies on Management:

“The challenges of DpH are twofold: define what are the habits that are convenient 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 herself, with her conduct: living the truth about the good done in each act, and the realization of the good subordinated to the truth about her own to be". For the moment, I was left thinking that Drucker was much clearer when writing and, although in second reading I thought I understood something else, I continued the search.

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. It is necessary 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, but I confess that I did not like the fact that the workers disconnected when the boss left: do we really have that picture?

Also by Miguel Ángel Alcalá, I could 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), deals with of jointly perfecting subjective work: what remains in man after having fulfilled his duty, what happens to him in his sameness. An identical objective work can imply subjective works even divergent ". I thought I understood the words, although the phrases misled me a bit.

From Isidro Fainé, CEO of La Caixa: “From a cold Direction by Instructions, one passed to an aseptic Direction by Objectives. Now, Management by Values ​​(introduced in our country by professors Dolan and García), coming from Indian thought; and the Direction by Habits (fruit of the thought of Professor Fernández Aguado), based on Greek culture, is manifest as quality instruments to continue working for the benefit of each member of the organizations in which we work. It is not a matter of substituting the Directorate for Objectives, as of raising these in the form of Challenges, and completing the government by pointing out the ways suitable for each worker to assume these new competencies, which allow them to complete Pindar's proposal: Get to be what you should to be". It seems that, in reality, it is not exactly a question of substituting DpO ...

I was already thinking of buying Fernández Aguado's book, when I accessed a presentation from the company that provided e-learning to which I referred previously, Fycsa (now “élogos”), prepared by Sandra Díaz for a conference held in Madrid (2005). I was not getting a good idea of ​​what the direction by habits meant, but my curiosity and had finally accessed recent information related to the exercise of the leadership. I could read right away: “Habits, tendencies to repeat an act, can become virtues or vices. Vices are habits that do not have a positive end for man, on the contrary virtues have the purpose of perfecting man and therefore imply positive acts (Aristotle, 2001). Analyzing the concept from the point of view of virtue, it can be said that they are acquired habits that facilitate the performance of good acts ”. (I understand that the quote refers to a modern version of Ética a Nicómaco, written by Fernández Aguado, and not a reincarnation of Plato's disciple).

It seems that, among the habits-virtues that are proposed for the manager, there is coherence, and also the confidence that each collaborator will contribute the best of himself... But there is also to the fundamental or cardinal virtues, to rename three of them and postulate perspective (for prudence), equity (for justice), balance (for temperance) and strength. It seems that they are betting on the manager-leader who makes his virtues-habits visible, to serve as an example to his collaborators.

Likewise, in Sandra Díaz's presentation I read: “The DpH is the achievement of the translation of the company's values ​​into shares seeking to overcome the institutionalization that can be caused during the maturation process of a company and maintain the motivation at appropriate levels, which will result from the ability 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, he does not manipulate them. He understands your wishes and your decisions. It works the intelligence, the will and the emotions ”. (The latter gives me reservations when I put myself in the shoes of the follower).

I also saw a figure in which the DpO was presented as an advance over the direction by instructions (DpI) that it replaced, that the DpV was presented as an advance on the DpO, and that the DpH was presented as an advance on the DpV: the necessary advance to serve as doctrine to "leaders copies ". I am reluctant to question the validity of the DpO (although it is necessary to take more care in the formulation of objectives), and to see it graphically surpassed or replaced by coherence with proclaimed values, or by a mere preaching of virtues-habits. But, as I suggested, DpO seems to me to be a solid method of managing people after ambitious but achievable goals, while DpV or DpH seem more related to me. with personal actions aimed at effectiveness, with the styles of action or the culture of each organization (which logically formulates its own values ​​or its virtues).

I read more things but I think I have already reproduced enough sentences that tell us about DpH - perhaps not always with sufficient clarity - and I would just like to insist in that, if I limit myself to the electronic information collected, it is about having virtuous-exemplary leaders (I suppose that each organization will determine the virtues, as was done with values), that work the intelligence, the will and the emotions of the workers, and whose behavior will serve as example. This must be a too simple synthesis of mine, because Sandra Díaz pointed out a complex implantation process that involved:

• Management team.
• Designer Team.
• Internal tutors.
• External advisory team.
• Coaches.
• Protagonists of the program.
• Discussion groups.
• Trainers and referents.

So Javier Fernández Aguado's doctrine must be broader, as he himself has confirmed, among other things because it refers to both technical (hard) and behavioral (soft) habits. However, this was not exactly the solution I was looking for for the redefinition of leadership, although perhaps it is for the reader. Of course, it seems to point to the improvement of behaviors, although this seems to depend on the habits and virtues that are proclaimed in each case, and fidelity to them, without falling into the adulteration. It is seen that our behavior habits were not good enough, despite the many seminars on leadership that have been held in companies in recent years; It is not surprising that some large companies consider a boost to it, but their contribution to collective efficiency and quality of life in companies should be ensured.

In the end, I had to be somewhat critical of the model I had been studying, even though I was aware that I must be missing a lot of information about it. That is why I feel obliged to propose - coming back to this - that we focus our attention on the new knowledge workers. We should not insist on a wrong or exaggerated elitization of leaders versus followers. In the name of managerial talent, we have indulged many young people “with potential”, and today we know it well. In the knowledge economy, as it consolidates, what is worth is knowing; management is still important, but knowledge, nurtured by lifelong learning and development, is vital. Let's stop pampering managers too much and labeling them leaders, to serve, from the professionalism and ethics, continuous learning, knowledge, innovation, productivity and competitiveness.

I say that what counts is knowledge, because today any fairly complex product has an essential raw material: knowledge. Many products, without referring to the PCs themselves, are full of "intelligence", of electronic engineering or mechatronics: automobiles, electrical appliances, telephones, cards... Workers are an asset for the company to the extent that they know, and that they can contribute to the inexcusable innovation. They know more than their bosses and they are aware of the importance of their knowledge. Workers need companies, but companies also need knowledge workers. The workers do not ask to be pampered, but they do ask that they be respected. (All of this was said by Drucker, I think, and quite clearly.)

Personally, from my life in a large company, I remember that what bothered me the most was that they asked me to do botches, that I did not let me do things right (well, it also bothered me that they took me for a fool, even if they did it perhaps with a certain reason); It is not that I was then an example of a knowledge worker (which without a doubt I lacked knowledge for this), but I think that That happens to the workers I am referring to: they like to do things well without there being a quality department that hang their medals, and they like that they respect their knowledge and creativity, without prevailing that the best ideas are those of the boss. They do not like any leader to take credit for their learning and development. They do not like authority to prevail over reason. Afraid they don't like to feel led by someone they haven't chosen, although they do want to open space for their emotions and their intuitions accompanying their knowledge.

He said that what counts is knowledge, because it constitutes the ability to act; but, beyond being capable, we have to do it well, with good results: we have to be competent in the entire competence profile (knowledge, skills techniques, attitudes, intrapersonal strengths, social skills, behaviors ...) that are demanded of us, and we must equip ourselves with the meta-competencies that ensure the effectiveness: among them, a kind of protagonism over our professional activity, call it —beyond the initiative— self-leadership, or mastery of ourselves themselves. The reader will think, and with good reason, that I am already passing (about 3,000 words): I will leave it then. Thank you for your attention, whether it is accompanied by assent or dissent. Really.

This article is merely informative, in Psychology-Online we do not have the power to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment. We invite you to go to a psychologist to treat your particular case.

If you want to read more articles similar to Redefining Leadership in the Company, we recommend that you enter our category of Management and business organization.