CULTURE, LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION / IGNACIO CRISTÓBAL

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

We make people "bad" at work for not complying with most of the above, and we usually top it off with phrases that are said, and even written, such as "the 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 we rely on fashionable theories, gurus, expensive consultants who fill our heads with new concepts that the common mortals have never heard of.

Experience tells us that when it comes to "people at work", the old recipes are still working 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 , 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. 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 and which one of film director Ridley Scott's masterpieces, Gladiator, reminded us of 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 for this reason will already be complying with them, will be different, will drag with his example and will achieve that some of his team contribute, get involved, tell about it, more people 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 (professional) purpose 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. We should not be afraid of "painted benches" to innovate and improve. How many bosses 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, didn't listen to him, didn't care for him, didn't train him and at the time he might need him, he was not Pass "for service".

But what we usually find in the Departments are managers who continue to "get things done", 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 people management 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 manage oneself".

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 in the face of any status? Am I sincere and transparent? Do I honor my commitments? Is my behavior consistent with my principles?

(Emotional balance) Do I react with the appropriate emotions and moods in 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 at the right time? Do I analyze the cause of the problem in depth? 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 it is already given to us by the "potestas".

A transformational leader, more defined by a relationship of professional influence, is an enriched transactional leader, who in addition to the incentive methodaward), offers his subordinates an attractive work that allows them to learn and commit themselves. It is a visionary and charismatic leader, with great communication skills and non-conformist, 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 staff influence relationship: he appeals to the need that others have for his work to be well done, because of his sense of mission statement. He is a leader strongly committed to the project, who leads by example and encourages leadership in his subordinates (he is a leader who generates leaders). He promotes the transfer of the sense of mission statement to the 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 driving force in the management of human teams.

General Douglas MacArthur in his famous speech "The long grey line" in 1962 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 demean them to the Degree of ridicule and derision. But these are some of the things that build the basic character, make us strong enough to know when