Pilar Jerico

What lies in store for people management in the coming year? In this post, I’d like to share those ideas which I think will have the greatest impact on human resources management this year. Of course, some of these ideas will be more appropriate for some sectors than for others; and only time will tell if these predictions turn out to be prescient…

1. Leadership 2.0: A new style of people management, more open and less distant, is gradually making headway. The creation of this new culture is being helped by Web 2.0 applications that focus on cooperation, new ways of perceiving value in companies, and the presence of a digitally literate workforce. However, this culture change will not be achieved primarily because of technology, but because of a different conception of managing people; in particular, a more cooperative, transparent and less distant type of leadership. As happened with Internet at the beginning, some companies will be quick to embrace new styles of management facilitated by technological advances, while others will be mere passive observers. When we talk about a 2.0. approach, we do not just mean having a blog (!), but far more profound changes in management style.
2. Change and transformation management: Many companies are embarking on profound changes, and will need to implement a shift in the company culture for a variety of reasons: they are entering the 2.0 world, they will have to keep on downsizing their workforce, or they’re trying to recover after a bad 2009. No one knows what will happen in 2010, but one thing is for sure: we won’t go back to where we were before the crisis. Therefore, the need for change and transformation is inevitable.
3. A NoFear style of management: Many people are feeling dejected because of the crisis, and it will be a real challenge to manage them in such a way that they stay motivated. Unfortunately, fear is on the increase, and many managers who previously nurtured their staff’s talent are now returning to more coercive practices. However, such a management style is incompatible with creativity and with a state of mind which allows people to give the best of themselves.
4. Mentoring: Many less-experienced managers are finding the current exacting circumstances very difficult to negotiate. For this reason, companies such as Banesto are implementing talent development programmes which use more experienced members of staff as guides, or mentors.
5. Informal learning: A few years ago, one of the difficulties of e-learning was the lack of access to Internet, or people’s lack of ability to use it. This problem largely no longer exists, and we now have the opportunity, and the challenge, to provide cooperation-oriented resources which enable people to develop professionally.
6. A client-focused approach: Human resources departments need to fully understand they are at the service of external and internal clients; they should also think about using basic marketing skills in their communications with the rest of the company, as their internal image often leaves much to be desired. All of the foregoing will serve to place the human resource department more in line with the basic aims of the business.
7. 2.0 communication: Social networks are assuming increasing importance in intra-company communication. Indeed, some of the more innovative companies are now replacing intranets with this type of tool. Communication needs to be increasingly horizontal, and in all possible directions, both within the company, and externally.
8. The end of rigid demarcation: Divisions between departments will be gradually diluted thanks to technology and the need to work as a team. As complexity grows, rigidly separated departments make less sense. Detailed lists of functions that are set in stone will gradually become meaningless owing to the rapid pace of change.
9. More performance-related salaries: The percentage of total remuneration which is allocated to meeting objectives may increase, especially in times of crisis like the present. While it is true that companies cannot afford to lose talented people, it is equally true that they are not in a position to pay the salaries offered before.
10. A better work-life balance: An increasingly popular way of improving employee motivation is to implement policies that help staff meet the demands of their professional and personal lives. Such motivation-enhancing policies are all the more important in an environment where salaries may well stagnate.

How do we choose our leaders? The Spanish broadcaster Eduardo Punset tackled this question with the evolutionary social psychologist Mark van Vugt of the University of Kent in his programme Redes (“Networks”). (For those of you who understand Spanish, I’ve inserted the video of the interview. If you want to read the interview in Spanish, the transcript is here). Among the many ideas discussed, I found the following especially interesting:

• Who comes first, the leader or the followers? In the animal kingdom, it’s the followers who come first. To increase their chances of survival, animals stick together in a group. When the strongest animal goes in search of water or food, the rest follow it. According to van Vugt, leadership among humans developed in a similar way: first came the followers, then the leader.

• We can identify three types of leadership on the evolutionary ladder. First we have “democratic leadership” which existed in hunter-gatherer societies around 2.5 million years ago. In this type of society there was no overall leader. Instead, there were different leaders according to the “area of expertise”: war, hunting, etc. Next appeared the phenomenon of hereditary leadership, around 10,000 years ago. Hereditary leadership was typical in societies based on farming, and led to the creation of a monarchy and aristocracy which passed from one generation to the next. Finally we come to the concept of leadership prevalent in more “developed” countries today, where followers have much more freedom than before and demand leaders who are closer to them. This type of leadership shares certain characteristics with leadership in hunter-gatherer societies.

• In the opinion of van Vugt, we choose female leaders when we want someone to smooth over conflicts, and male leaders when we are more interested in protection and defence from outside threats. This paradigm makes it difficult for women to become leaders of countries (as was the case with Hilary Clinton, according to van Vugt). This male/female dichotomy is based on attitudes we had in the past but, unfortunately, it still influences our way of thinking today. (As an aside, we usually choose older politicians in times of stability and younger politicians in times of change, so Obama got the slogan of his campaign right!)

• Finally, studies in companies have shown that leaders who are chosen by their colleagues demonstrate the same qualities as the leaders of our distant ancestors: they are reliable, trustworthy, not overly ambitious, and, interestingly, taller. I will elaborate on these ideas in another post.

Few subjects arouse such interest as leadership. There are millions of entries devoted to it in Google, and hundreds of courses and books, some of which provide the ingredients for becoming a good leader in the best style of the traditional cookery book. And yet, leadership continues to be a problem area for many organizations, despite the fact that it is quite possibly the key factor in fostering the development of talent, the achievement of targets and the elimination of fear.

Before approaching such a broad subject, we need to state a basic premise: we would do better to speak of leaders rather than leadership in the abstract. Now, the necessary but not sufficient condition of being a leader is to have followers. Let us be clear, being recognized as a leader does not mean that we have to become a combination of John Wayne and Albert Einstein, in the words of Jonas Ridderstrale and Kjell Nordström, the authors of Karaoke Capitalism. The essence of being a leader is much simpler than that, although no easier. Whereas managers are in charge of teams who follow their orders, leaders have people who want to follow them. This fundamental difference has two implications. First, we all have been, or may in the future be, leaders in a particular situation. Secondly, leadership is above all a question of the emotions. In point of fact, the best leaders I have known all have one thing in common, judging from what people who work with them have told me: the utmost understanding of each person they work with, the utmost awareness of their colleagues’ strong and weak points, and the ability to inspire the utmost trust. Their colleagues want to follow them not only for rational considerations but also for emotional ones. One last point on the subject of leaders. There are as many types of leaders as teams to lead. There are leaders whose strong point is their expert knowledge (like Gil Grissom in CSI Las Vegas, to take an example from TV), leaders who base their success on their ability to influence people while yet others who are very charismatic (such as Jack Welch, ex-Chairman and CEO of General Electric). Leaders of all types share common characteristics, one of the most important being the ability to communicate.

All organizations need to have efficient channels of communication if they want to avoid becoming a parody of the game of Chinese whispers, where a message is passed along a chain of people only to emerge completely distorted when it reaches the last person. To avoid a company falling into this trap, leaders have to communicate clearly, to communicate frequently and to check that their staff really understand what they’re trying to get across. If they don’t do this, they can suffer the same fate as Captain James Cook, the Englishman who discovered Australia in 1770. On disembarking to explore the newly-discovered continent, he saw a strange animal jumping around. He asked the Aborigines what it was called. “Kan-ga-roo” they replied. And so he called it a kangaroo. Years later, philologists began to study the Aborigines’ language. They discovered that “kan-ga-roo” actually means “I don’t understand”.  I wonder how many kangaroos are jumping round your office…

On-going communication can be extremely tiring but it is very productive. It helps to transmit emotions, values and the company culture and it also stops people wasting time trying to find out what’s going on in the corridors. Let us not forget that humans, according to psychologists, are informavores (consumers of information). If leaders do not provide all the necessary information, their staff will go and look for it in rumours, the number of which is always in direct proportion to the opaqueness of the organization.

To sum up, if we want to become good team leaders we need to develop excellent communication skills, regardless of what type of leader we strive to be. We need to communicate what we want, what we think and, of course, check that our message has been received loud and clear.

The competing theories on how to develop leadership qualities can be neatly divided into two camps. First of all, we have the “development looking out” approach which involves identifying positive role-models to follow. On the other hand, we have the “development looking in” school which advocates harnessing our emotions to achieve our full potential. Obviously, there is also a middle way which combines both approaches. This is probably the most fruitful course of action.

When management studies began to focus on leadership, the “development looking out” model was the order of the day. Writers analyzed great leaders from history or in business, such as Jack Welch, Napoleon or Churchill. They looked at how these figures acted to try to extract patterns of behaviour to hold up as a model. This approach is interesting. It gives us clues as to how we can improve, and it also provides a wealth of famous quotes to try out on friends and clients.  However, when we read biographies of famous people or heroes, we are often drawn into thinking how short we fall of their standards. And this is indeed the case. It’s as if being a leader meant becoming a combination of John Wayne and Albert Einstein, as the authors of Karaoke Capitalism, Jonas Ridderstrale and Kjell Nordström, say.

The essence of being a leader is much simpler than that, although no easier. The necessary, but not sufficient, condition of being a leader is to have followers. Whereas managers are in charge of teams who follow their orders, leaders have people who want to follow them. This fundamental difference has many implications. First, we all have been, or may in the future be, leaders in a particular situation. This may come as something of a relief. Secondly, leadership is a question of emotions. For this reason, any effort directed at developing our potential as leaders has to be based on “looking in”.

We all know that we have to delegate. We don’t need a consultant or a book to tell us that. What we have to find out, and afterwards deal with, is what makes it difficult for us to delegate in the people we manage or to spend more time with them. At root, the answer is always a silent but important emotion: fear. As a corollary, the development of leadership skills is bound up with dealing with our fear, since it is fear which stops us using all of our potential and making the most of our talents. I don’t think that we can become better leaders without becoming better people; and that takes a lot of courage. Looking in is not always a pleasant task, and I know too many people who find  thousands of excuses not to do it.