Redefining leadership in the company

Undoubted of which we make more diverse readings. Perhaps its meaning in the new economy should be questioned, attending to the profile of the new followers: knowledge workers. In effect, new leadership models arise, although perhaps we continue to think, to a large extent, in the industrial era workers.

The reader will have the opportunity here to disagree as much as he wants, but this joint would like to defend, at the outset, an interpretation of leadership that, without ruling out others that we will also identify, demanded the sanction of the led: “condition of the leader granted by the followers, which supposes a satisfactory relationship and shared commitments, and that mobilizes efforts and drives wills and emotions ”. He Leader would be a counselor of wills and efforts, Emotions catalyst, within a group that as such recognizes.

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

Updating the leader concept

By bringing this relationship to the business framework, we have to think that Managers-Lders would have to win the cognitive and emotional adhesion of their collaborators, After goals or shared objectives. Without this adhesion, we could talk in managers, bosses, controls ..., but perhaps not so much of leaders. And when talking about winning adhesion, I would not want. However, perhaps it is not certain that the relationship between managers and workers of the knowledge economy, is well reflected in the leading-secondary model.

I believe, in effect and although there are other ways of seeing it, that the new knowledge workers (university students, or from professional training or other ways) - it is clear that the new economy appears - they manifest themselves as good professionals to a large extent ( A new relational framework between companies and workers emerges), and do not seem to follow companies both in companies (except in connivence 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 identified with:

• Position at the head of the company, from an apartment, etc.
• Task of the first executive, typically in a process of change.
• System, method or style of directing people.
• Function of managers, complementary to that of management.
• Family of interpersonal skills of the best managers.
• Specific ability to guide and energize others after common goals.
• Enthusiastic, contagious and integrative attitude after a collective achievement.

Actually, in the times, rather than talking about leaders, this articulist would prefer to speak simply of new managers and new workers. But I have that the new economy is still on the way or process, and with which we will surely continue talking about leaders, although we also do it from the emerging profile - which in detail will draw us Peter Drucker - of the new knowledge workers:

• Visible degree of personal and professional development.
• Digital and Informational Dexterity.
• Autonomy in performance and permanent learning.
• Creative capacity and innovative attitude.
• Professional Autothelia and attachment to quality.
• In sum, a valuable asset for the company.

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

Naturally, when speaking of greed -or corruption, narcissism, ego cult, etc.- We cannot generalize, and it would also be necessary to distinguish between powerful senior executives on the one hand, and intermediate managers, of renewed paper and reduced power, on the other. But, leaving aside the unveiled abuse of some business leading copies (it would be unfair to cite only Welch), and focusing on intermediate managers, we must underline the transition of a traditional hierarchical authority in companies to another more based on knowledge , and that of a management and supervision management function to another support and service.

So far my modest point of view on the need to update the concept of leadership, in the intention of provoking reflections and even dissensions, because everything is certainly more complex; But I now tell my experience for searching for electronic information about a recent attempt to redefinition leadership in the company: the address for habits. I wanted to reflect it by Aleccuador: I think we can extract teachings from various kinds.

My approach experience to the DPH

Just deceased Peter Drucker in November 2005, and wanting to see what was now said about the direction by objectives (50 years after the renowned father of modern management would profile this professional management system), I prepared to look for the Internet, where in addition, where in addition I usually make serendipitous discoveries. Soon I found repairs to the system, and I found the so -called "Address for habits" (DPH), that seemed to be a necessary management evolution by objectives (DPO) and the direction of values ​​(DPV). Then also that a well-known e-learning provider, José Ignacio Díez (CEO of the former Fycsa, now integrated into “Élogos”), offered the DPH as the new leadership model, and also offered it as its star product for 2006.

I was interested because I had never especially associated the leadership, so that the DPH should be something sensibly different: less related to management, and more with leadership. ¿The DPH would come to correctly channel the management of people in companies, and to preach values ​​such as integrity or subordination to the community?

When the direction for values ​​arose, I was surprised that it was desired to relate to the management by objectives, and that some people saw it as a substitute for it: I speak of the 90s. For me the DPV was not a bad idea, and it also seemed to me necessary cultivate certain values ​​in companies (Beyond proclaiming them in posters), but it did not seem realistic to compare it with the doctrine of the DPO (which, if and in my opinion, had been adulterated in the application). There were, in my view, to continue working professionally to achieve well -selected and formulated important objectives, and we had to do it being competent (there was also talk of competency management) and acting, of course, in the cultural framework of the organization (beliefs, values, styles ...).

In my search for information about the address by habits (DPH), I arrived at a study by Deloitte & Touche prepared by Miguel Ángel Alcalá, general director of the International Association of Management Studies:

“The challenges of the DPH are two: define what are the habits that agree with people, and show the paths to achieve them. In this strict sense, the work is that the person conquered the truth of them realization of the subordinate good to the truth about their own being ". At the moment, I was thinking that Drucker was much clearer when writing and, although in the second reading I thought I understood something else, I continued looking for her.

By Javier Fernández Aguado, one of our renowned experts and father of this new doctrine, I could read: “The company's objectives can be achieved by threat or habits. It is dangerous to demand in an excessive way: in the short term it is usually very useful because employees work more for a while, but when the boss has left, the workers disconnect. We must know how to combine a address for threat to the direction of habits, which consists in convening the best desires and interests of each person in the work they do". I was left with the fact that the new leader had to convene the best wishes and interests of each follower, but I confess that I did not like the workers disconnected when the boss left: ¿We really have that image?

Also from Miguel Ángel Alcalá, I could read: “With the address for habits (DPH) a systemic (global) consideration of work and the person who executes it is established. The DPH, together with the fruits of the work, that various Central European authors call objective work (the external fruits of the work), try to jointly perfect the subjective work: what remains in man after having fulfilled his duty, which happens to him In his very. An identical target work may imply even divergent subjective works ”. I thought I understood the words, although the phrases confused me a bit.

By Isidro Fainé, general director of La Caixa: “From a cold direction on instructions, an aseptic direction was passed by objectives. Now, the direction of values ​​(introduced in our country by the professors Dollan and García), from the Indian thought; and the address for habits (fruit of the thought of Professor Fernández Aguado), based on the 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 about replacing the address with objectives, such as setting them in the form of challenges, and completing the government pointing out the appropriate ways for each worker to assume these new competences, which allow them to culminate the proposal of Píndaro: it becomes what is what you must be". It seems that, in reality, it is not exactly about replacing the DPO ..

I was already thinking about buying the book by Fernández Aguado, when I accessed a presentation of the company providing e-learning that I referred to previously, Fycsa (now “Éologos”), prepared by Sandra Díaz for a days held in Madrid (2005 ). I was not well found out about what the address meant for habits, but my curiosity had been nourished and finally accessed recent information and related to leadership exercise. I could read immediately: “Habits, trends to repeat an act can become virtues or vices. Vices are habits that do not have a positive purpose 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 realization of good acts ”. (I understand that the appointment refers to a modern version of Ethics to Nicómaco, written by Fernández Aguado, and not to a reincarnation of Plato's disciple).

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

Also, in the presentation of Sandra Díaz I read: “The 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 maintain motivation at levels at levels convenient, 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 in full. The true leader conquers the will and emotions of the collaborators, do not manipulate them. Understand your wishes and decisions. Intelligence, will and emotions work ". (The latter produces reservations when I put myself in the follower's skin).

I also saw a figure in which the DPO was presented as an advance on the direction by instructions (DPI) to which 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 a doctrine to "exemplary leaders". I resist questioning the validity of the DPO (although the formulation of objectives must be taken more), and to see it graphically surpassed or replaced by coherence with proclaimed values, or by a mere preaching of virtues-habit. But, as I suggested, the DPO seems to me a solid method of management of people after ambitious but attainable goals, while the DPV or the DPH seem more related to personal actions aimed at effectiveness, with the styles of action or 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 phrases that tell us about the DPH -Quizá not always with enough clarity- and I would only want to insist that, if I limit myself to the electronic information collected, it is about having virtuous leaders (I suppose that each organization will determine the virtues, as with the values), that work the intelligence, will and emotions of the workers, and whose behavior will serve as an example. This must be a synthesis of mine too simple, because Sandra Díaz pointed a complex implementation process that involved:

• Management team.
• Designer Team.
• Internal tutors.
• External Advisory Team.
• Coaches.
• Program protagonists.
• Debate groups.
• Trainers and referents.

So the doctrine of Javier Fernández Aguado must be broader, as he has confirmed, among other things because he refers to both technical habits (hard) and behavioral (Soft). However, this was not exactly the solution that 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 of fidelity to them, without falling into adulteration. It is seen that our behavior habits were not good enough, despite the many seminars that, on leadership, have been celebrated in companies in recent years; It is not strange that some large companies consider an impulse to it, but it would be necessary to ensure their contribution to collective efficacy and quality of life in companies.

What do I propose

In the end I have had to be critical of the model I had been studying, even being aware that it must miss a lot of information from it. That is why I feel forced to propose - again on it - that we focus our attention on the new knowledge workers. We should not insist on a wrong or exaggerated elitization of leaders in front of followers. In the name of the managerial talent, we have consented many things to many young people "with potential", and today we know well. In the knowledge economy, as it consolidates, What is worth is knowing; Management remains important, but knowledge, nourished by learning and permanent development, is vital. Let's stop pampering managers too much and labeling them with leaders, to attend, from professionalism and ethics, continuous learning, knowledge, innovation, productivity and competitiveness.

I say that what is worth is knowing, because today any moderately complex product has an essential raw material: knowledge. Many products, without referring to the PCs themselves, are full of "intelligence", electronic or mechatronic engineering: cars, appliances, phones, cards ... workers constitute an asset for the company to the extent that they know, And in which 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 they also need knowledge workers. Workers do not ask them to be mime, but they are respected. (All this was said by Drucker, I think, and quite clearly).

Personally, from my life in a great company, I remember that what bothered me most was that they asked me to make fudge, that they would not let me do things well (well, I also bothered me to take 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 undoubtedly knowledge for it I was missing), but I think that happens to the workers to what I am referring to: they like doing things right without a department of quality that their medals are hanged, and they like to respect their knowledge and creativity, without impersonating the best ideas are those of the boss. They do not like any leader to appropriate the merit of their learning and development. They do not like authority to impose itself on reason. Afraid They do not like to feel led by someone who has not chosen, although they want to open space to their emotions and intuitions accompanying their knowledge.

He said that what is worth is knowing, because it constitutes the ability to act; But, beyond being capable, we have to do it well, with good results: we must be competent in the entire competence profile (knowledge, technical skills, attitudes, intrapersonal strengths, social skills, behaviors ...) that we are demanded, and we have to endowed the metacompences that ensure efficacy: among them, a kind of prominence about our professional activity, call - beyond the initiative - self -founding, or mastery of ourselves. The reader will think, and rightly, I'm already happening (about 3.000 words): I leave it then. Thanks for your attention, it is already accompanied by assent or dissension. Really.

This article is merely informative, in psychology-online we have no 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 Business Management and Organization.