CULTURE, LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION / IGNACIO CRISTÓBAL

written request We, the people who work, are people who ultimately want to contribute, participate, develop, socialize in the work, combine our professional life with our family life ... to fulfill ourselves in both worlds: staff and the professional one.

We make people "bad" on work for failing to comply with many of the above, and we usually top it off with phrases that are said, and even written, such as " staff is the most important thing". 

It is scientifically proven that "if the above is fulfilled (or, at least, it tends to be) and is perceived by the people who work with us, companies, organizations or institutions are more effective and obtain better results". Even in the "VUCA" (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) environment in which we move today.

Today, as always, there are organizations that are doing better than others. It is being studied (MIT, Harvard, IESE ...) and it is "these things" listed above that make the difference and prepare us to succeed in this uncertain world. Organizations know this very well, but sometimes it is not practiced too much: short-termism, day to day, can do it. Other times we want to do it, but we don't know how to do it, and so we turn to fashionable theories, gurus and expensive consultants who fill our heads with new concepts that the average person has never heard of.

Experience tells us that when it comes to "people at work", the old recipes still work today more than ever: values, culture, exemplary leadership, an atmosphere of respect, fairness, demands, security (especially psychological security), two-way flexibility, and probably a few more. And the main lever for all this is the managers.

For years we have focused on the technical, on knowledge, on cognitive intelligence, but it is the professional competencies, in this case the managerial ones, such as critical thinking, achievement orientation, work teamwork, leadership and effective communication. All of these skills and competencies must be based on a foundation that, "if you don't have them, they are useless. director These are what IESE calls "internal personal management competencies," and they are no more than a derivation of the four cardinal virtues we learned as children, as one of Ridley Scott's masterpieces, Gladiator, reminded us once again: Justice, prudence, fortitude and temperance are transformed today into integrity, emotional balance, self-control, decision-making, self-criticism, self-knowledge and learning.

The manager who tries to comply with them, and in part because of this he/she is already complying with them, will be different, will drag with his/her example and will get some of his/her team to contribute, get involved, tell about it, get more people to join, participate, raise the human level, make a team, achieve a certain belonging to that reduced human group that works and have a status in which the purpose (professional) of each one converges with that of the group.  

And problems will arise, there will be resistance and "burned out" people, perhaps demotivated by previous managers, by their own bad habits or those of the institution. It is then that managers should be brave, not be afraid and give themselves a chance to try. There is no need to fear the "painted benches" to innovate and improve. How many managers do we remember for having changed something? And regarding "burnt out" people, let's remember the almost magical phrase of the Emperor to his son in Gladiator: "Your shortcomings as a son are my failure as a father". He didn't care, he didn't listen to him, he didn't care for him, he didn't train him and at the time he might need him, he wasn't Pass "for service".

But what we usually find on Departments are managers who are still "doing", which is the poorest definition of leadership, and unfortunately, almost the only one that is practiced. Managers are the levers of change. 

Let us also bear in mind what Peter Drucker, the father of modern management, said at the age of ninety: "For more than forty years I have been teaching management about people in organizations. Today I no longer think that "managing other people" is the fundamental aspect that the manager has to learn: what I teach today is, above all, how to manageoneself".

Shouldn't managers be asking themselves questions almost every day to know how to manage?

(Integrity) Do I behave in an upright and honest manner before any status? Am I sincere and transparent ? Do I assume the commitments acquired ? Is my behavior coherent with my principles ?

(Emotional balance) Do I react with the appropriate emotions and moods at each status? Am I patient with my limitations and those of others ? Do I calm down in times of stress ?

(Decision making) Do I make decisions appropriately and in a timely manner? Do I thoroughly analyze the cause of the problem? Do I explore various alternatives? Do I contrast if possible? 

(Self-criticism) Do I accept and assume my personal limitations and mistakes? Do I appreciate the advice of others? Do I allow myself to be helped? Do I accept responsibility for my failures and apologize?

(Self-control) Do I do what needs to be done at each moment without getting carried away by what is appetizing? Do I resist fatigue? Do I finish what I start? Am I decisive?

(Self-knowledge) Do I frequently examine my behavior? Do I ask for feedback with the intention of learning, improving? Do I know my shortcomings and strengths? Do I reflect on my experiences? Do I analyze my feelings and how they affect my performance and relationships with others?

What should your leadership be like with these assumptions and in the current environment in which we live? Transcendent, transactional or transformational?  

The transactional leader is usually a good negotiator, authoritarian, and relies on rewards and punishments to motivate subordinates. His managerial style is based on "command and control" and focuses on the short term. It is the easy thing to do and the "potestas" already gives it to us.

A transformational leader, more defined by a relationship of professional influence, is an enriched transactional leader, who in addition to the incentive method (award-punishment), offers his subordinates an attractive work that allows them to learn and commit themselves. He is a visionary and charismatic leader, with great communication skills and nonconformist, who continuously rethinks things and promotes the "empowerment" of his subordinates. This leadership subject can be especially problematic if the leader's vision becomes an end in itself.

The transcendent leader is defined by his relationship of influence staff: he appeals to the need that others have for his work to be well realized, because of his sense of mission statement. He is a leader strongly committed to project, who leads by example and fosters leadership in his subordinates (he is a leader who generates leaders). He promotes passing on the sense of mission statement to subordinates, at the level of responsibility that corresponds to each one. Normally these managers do not need to "pull stars" since their people grant them the "autoritas", the true engine in the management of human teams.

General Douglas MacArthur in his famous speech "The long grey line" that in 1962 he addressed to the cadets graduating that year at West Point gave the core topic:

"Unbelievers will say that they are nothing but words, a slogan or an extravagant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every disruptor will try to degrade them to the Degree of mockery and ridicule. But these are some of the things that build the basic character, make us strong enough to know when to